Crone, J.
Case Summary
Lutheran Health Network of Indiana, LLC, Lutheran Health Network Investors, LLC, and CHSPSC, LLC (collectively “Lutheran”), filed a complaint in Tennessee state court against former CEO of Lutheran Health Network (“LHN”) Brian Bauer and five John Does. Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 28(E), Lutheran initiated an ancillary proceeding in Allen Superior Court in Indiana (“the trial court”) to assist its discovery in the Tennessee lawsuit. Lutheran asked the trial court to authorize service of subpoenas for testimony and documents on various non-parties domiciled in Indiana, which the court did. Indiana University Health (“IU Health”) was allowed to intervene in the ancillary proceeding to protect its interests with respect to confidential and proprietary documents and information that Lutheran requested from nonparties who were IU Health employees. Lutheran, the non-parties, and IU Health repeatedly requested either enforcement of or relief from the discovery requests. The Tennessee lawsuit was dismissed while discovery matters were still pending in the trial court. Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 34(C)(3), some of the non-parties and IU Health (collectively “Appellees”) requested damages resulting from Lutheran’s discovery requests, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court granted the requests over Lutheran’s objection and awarded fees to the non-parties and fees and costs to IU Health.
Lutheran now appeals, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees and costs; that the trial court erred in ruling that Appellees are entitled to fees under Trial Rule 34(C)(3); that the trial court erred in ruling that IU Health has standing to seek fees and costs under that rule; and that the trial court never afforded it an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of the requested fees. We hold that the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to award fees and costs; that the trial court did not err in ruling that Appellees are entitled to fees under Trial Rule 34(C)(3); that the trial court did not err in ruling that IU Health has standing to seek fees and costs under that rule; and that Lutheran must be given an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of the requested fees. Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.
….
Here, Lutheran argues that “[w]hen the underlying action in Tennessee was dismissed, the trial court’s ancillary jurisdiction was terminated as a matter of law. The trial court had ancillary jurisdiction only by virtue of the Tennessee case. Without it, the trial court was powerless.” Lutheran’s Br. at 28-29.
“A court’s jurisdiction either exists or does not, and the question of a court’s jurisdiction is accordingly a question of law that is not entrusted to the trial court’s discretion. Rather, it is reviewed de novo.” In re Paternity of M.R., 778 N.E.2d 861, 863 (Ind. Ct. Ap. 2002), clarified on reh’g, 784 N.E.2d 861, trans. dismissed (2003). Assuming for argument’s sake that Lutheran’s (and the Dean panel’s) description of and reliance on jurisdictional concepts are appropriate, we find Dean distinguishable, for three reasons. [Footnote omitted.] First, multiple discovery matters, including several fee petitions and the Schenkels’ motion to quash their depositions, were pending in the ancillary proceeding in this case when the primary proceeding was terminated; it would be absurd to hold that “any issue pending before the ancillary tribunal, no matter how ripe for decision, cannot proceed once the main cause is dismissed[,]” as the Non-Parties put it. Non-Parties’ Br. at 22. Second, the trial court in this case did not dismiss the ancillary proceeding, precisely because several ripe issues remained pending before it. And third, Appellees are seeking attorneys’ fees for responding to discovery requests, not expert witness fees, which Dean should have sought from Weaver in a separate breach-of-contract action. In other words, as the Non-Parties point out, Appellees “do not have another method of recovery available to them.” Id. at 19. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs.
Section 2 –The trial court did not err in ruling that Appellees are entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to Trial Rule 34(C)(3).
….
Section 3 – The trial court did not err in ruling that IU Health has standing to seek attorneys’ fees and costs under Trial Rule 34(C)(3).
….
Section 4 – Remand is appropriate to give Lutheran an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of Appellees’ requested attorneys’ fees.
….
Affirmed in part and remanded.
Baker, J., and Altice, J., concur