The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow discovery of defendant’s cell phone; the burden of plaintiff’s proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit in light of defendant’s significant privacy concerns.
Taylor v. Allen Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 23S-CT-378, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 13, 2023).
Appeal was dismissed prematurely because plaintiff had 20 business days from the date of the Notice of Defect to submit corrected documents under Ind. Appellate Rule 23.
DeCola v. Norfolk So. Corp., No. 23S-PL-358, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 8, 2023).
The appellate court did not have jurisdiction over denial of summary judgment motion because it was not a final order and did not resolve all claims as to all parties.
Owens v. State, No. 23A-CR-985, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2023).
For a party to invoke T.R. 34 as the basis for an alleged discovery violation, that party must have first made a discovery request. In a criminal case, if the defendant made no discovery request to the State, the defendant cannot later challenge the admission of documents or electronically stored information on the ground that the State violated T.R. 34 in its production of the materials.
Sevion v. State, No. 23A-CR-1107, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2023).
Post-Conviction Rule 2 does not apply to the denial of a bond reduction motion.