## Facts

- Linda Ledet, a parishioner at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Mobile, Alabama, alleged that Father Paul G. Zoghby engaged in sexual misconduct toward her beginning in 1997.
- In 2002, Ledet submitted a written complaint to the Catholic Archdiocese of Mobile; Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb personally investigated after Ledet requested confidentiality.
- During the investigation, Zoghby initially denied wrongdoing and accused Ledet of untruthfulness, but he later recanted and admitted misconduct.
- Ledet filed a civil action against the Archdiocese, Archbishop Lipscomb, Zoghby, and others, seeking damages for injuries tied to the alleged misconduct and related conduct by church authorities.
- In discovery, Ledet sought documents related to psychological counseling Zoghby undertook after the Archdiocese’s investigation.
- The trial court granted Ledet’s motion to compel production of the counseling-related documents.
- Zoghby petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to vacate the discovery order, asserting privilege and confidentiality protections.

## Issues

1. Whether mandamus was available to review and overturn a trial court’s order compelling production of psychological-counseling records in discovery.
2. Whether Zoghby established a clear legal right to relief by showing the records were privileged such that compelled disclosure would cause irreparable harm not remediable on appeal.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court applied a restrictive framework for mandamus review of discovery orders and concluded the challenged order did not fit within the narrow categories warranting extraordinary review.
- The court determined Zoghby failed to show a clear legal right to relief or that ordinary trial-court measures were inadequate to protect confidentiality interests.
- The trial court’s order compelling production remained in effect, subject to the trial court’s discretion to use protective mechanisms.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is a drastic remedy and issues only upon a showing of (1) a clear legal right, (2) an imperative duty and refusal, (3) lack of an adequate alternative remedy, and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction.
- Appellate mandamus review of discovery orders is generally unavailable and is limited to exceptional circumstances, including certain orders compelling disclosure of privileged material where the loss of confidentiality cannot be cured on appeal.
- A petitioner seeking mandamus relief from a discovery order must demonstrate that the order is plainly erroneous and that post-judgment appeal or trial-court protections are inadequate.
- Trial courts may manage sensitive discovery through tools such as protective orders and in camera review, which can reduce the need for extraordinary appellate intervention.

## Conclusion

The court refused to intervene by mandamus to block discovery of counseling records, holding that the petitioner did not meet the demanding standard for extraordinary relief under Alabama’s narrow approach to mandamus review of discovery orders.


Ex parte Zoghby, 958 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 2006)