Johnson v. Chaudhry ( 2013 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Marquette Johnson, as Mother and Natural Guardian of
D'Andre G., an infant under the age of 14 years,
Appellant/Respondent,
v.
Anu Chaudhry, M.D., McLeod Regional Medical Center,
and Florence Women's Health, Defendants,
Of Whom Anu Chaudhry, M.D., and Florence Women's
Health are Respondents/Appellants.
Appellate Case No. 2011-190146
Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-176
Heard April 2, 2013 – Filed May 1, 2013
APPEALS DISMISSED
Kevin Hayne Sitnik, The South Carolina Law Firm, of
Irmo, and Robert V. Phillips, McGowan, Hood & Felder,
LLC, of Rock Hill, for Appellant/Respondent.
Hugh W. Buyck and G. Wade Cooper, Buyck & Sanders,
LLC, of Mount Pleasant, and Deborah Harrison
Sheffield, of Columbia, for Respondents/Appellants.
PER CURIAM: Marquette Johnson appeals the circuit court's denial of her
request for an extension of a scheduling order's deadlines. She also appeals a
discovery sanction order allowing her to present only one expert witness at trial on
issues of liability. These decisions are not immediately appealable. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1977) (providing appellate jurisdiction to review "[a]n
order affecting a substantial right made in an action when such order . . . in effect
determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be
taken or discontinues the action"); Grosshuesch v. Cramer, 377 S.C. 12, 30, 659
S.E.2d 112, 122 (2008) (dismissing appeal of order in which circuit court limited
dissemination of information obtained in discovery and declined to impose
sanctions; "discovery orders, in general, are interlocutory and are not immediately
appealable because they do not, within the meaning of the appealability statute,
involve the merits of the action or affect a substantial right"). Therefore, we
dismiss Johnson's appeal.
Anu Chaudhry and Florence Women's Health appeal the circuit court's orders (1)
granting Johnson's motion to reconsider an order granting Chaudhry and Florence
Women's Health summary judgment, and (2) denying their motion to reconsider
the order granting Johnson's motion. Chaudhry and Florence Women's Health
claim that by making these rulings, the circuit court "effectively denied" their
summary judgment motion. Such decisions are not appealable. Bank of N.Y. v.
Sumter Cnty., 387 S.C. 147, 154, 691 S.E.2d 473, 477 (2010) ("[I]t is well-settled
that an order denying summary judgment is never reviewable on appeal.").
Therefore, we dismiss Chaudhry and Florence Women's Health's cross-appeal.
APPEALS DISMISSED.
FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.