State of West Virginia ex rel. Charlotte Pritt v. Charles M. Vickers, Judge of the Fayette County Circuit Court, et al.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia considered a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the circuit court's refusal to permit additional discovery after reversal of a pre-answer summary judgment ruling. The court held that when a dispositive pre-answer motion is denied or reversed, the plaintiff must be allowed post-answer discovery even if pre-answer discovery occurred. The writ was granted as moulded, the scheduling order was vacated, and the case was remanded for a scheduling order permitting expert and other discovery.

Holdings

1. When a defendant's dispositive pre-answer motion is denied by the trial court, or granted but reversed by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff must be permitted to conduct discovery after the defendant files an answer, even if the parties previously engaged in pre-answer discovery.
2. A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of discretion in regard to discovery orders.
3. A separate motion to reopen discovery was not required where the petitioner properly raised the issue through a motion seeking entry of a Rule 16(b) scheduling order, particularly because no post-answer scheduling order had yet been entered.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff must be permitted to conduct discovery after a defendant files an answer when the defendant's dispositive pre-answer motion was granted but reversed on appeal.
2. Whether the circuit court substantially abused its discretion by incorporating an expired pre-answer discovery cutoff into a post-answer scheduling order and precluding further discovery and expert-witness discovery.
3. Whether a writ of prohibition was an available remedy for the alleged discovery error.

Disposition

writ_granted