Ex Parte Peter Ferrari (in Re D.r. Horton, Inc.—birmingham v. Peter Ferrari). Peter Ferrari v. D.r. Horton…

Summary

The court held that review of an order granting or denying preaction discovery under Rule 27(a) must be sought by mandamus rather than appeal, and it dismissed the Ferrari defendants' appeal. It granted mandamus because the trial court failed to hold the required hearing, ordered written interrogatories unavailable under Rule 27(a), and improperly allowed discovery sought only to investigate potential claims rather than preserve evidence. The court overruled its prior interpretation permitting investigatory preaction discovery and directed dismissal of DR Horton's petition. Justice Shaw, dissenting, would have upheld the trial court's discretion to proceed without an in-court hearing and would not have overruled the prior interpretation of Rule 27.