Airgas Mid-America, Inc. v. Shannon Long, et al. (7/30/04 IndCtApp) [Procedure]
Sharpnack, Judge
In this interlocutory appeal, Airgas Mid-America, Inc. (“Airgas”) appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to quash filed by Evansville Welding Supply, LLC (“EWS”). Airgas raises several issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting EWS’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum based upon the accountant-client privilege. We reverse and remand. * * *Theodore Fugett v. State of Indiana (7/30/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]Although EWS had the burden of demonstrating why each individual piece of information was privileged, EWS did not assert the privilege on a question-by-question or document-by-document basis. We conclude that EWS’s blanket privilege claim was insufficient to meet its burden of demonstrating that the information was privileged under the accountant-client privilege. While some of the information may be protected under the accountant-client privilege, the trial court must make this determination on an individual basis. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by granting EWS’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. See, e.g., Penn Cent. Corp. v. Buchanan, 712 N.E.2d 508, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that “[w]hile the subject of Penn Central’s request is seemingly broad-based, Buchanan’s blanket invocation of privilege is insufficient to support his assertion that all the requested documents were protected. While some of the requested documents and testimony may have been protected if properly challenged, such a determination must be made on an item specific basis.”), reh’g denied, trans. denied.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of EWS’s motion to quash and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.
DARDEN, J. and ROBB, J. concur
Midtown Chiropractic v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company (7/30/04 IndCtApp) [Insurance]
Lagarda Security v. Alva Lawalin (7/30/04 IndCtApp) [Worker's Compensation]
Donald E. Geels v. Matt Dunbar, et al. (7/30/04 IndCtApp) [Landlord-Tenant]
James D. Perkins v. State of Indiana (7/30/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Sullivan, Judge
Following a jury trial, Appellant, James Perkins, was convicted of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Causing Serious Bodily Injury, a Class D felony. * * *Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 30, 2004 02:12 PMPerkins argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was intoxicated. Specifically, Perkins discounts the mistakes he made during the field sobriety tests and thus asserts that the State presented only minimal evidence as to whether he was impaired. Perkins further asserts that the fact that Detective Williams smelled burnt marijuana established nothing more than a mere suggestion that Perkins may have used marijuana. Perkins then directs our attention to evidence which he asserts proves that he had not been using marijuana on the day of the accident. In all, Perkins’ arguments amount to nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, a task we will not undertake upon appeal. The State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Perkins was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MAY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.