In DePina v. State, No. 2011-259-Appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena, while interlocutory in nature, was reviewable under the McAuslan Doctrine. Id. at 6. Although recognizing its long-standing practice of declining to address on appeal an interlocutory order that lacks finality, the Supreme Court held that application of the McAuslan Doctrine was not only proper but necessary in the context of that case. Id. at 5-6.
In DePina, in connection with his application for postconviction relief, the plaintiff had filed a subpoena seeking discovery of the mental health records of an eyewitness in his 1998 murder trial. Id. at 3. The eyewitness moved to quash the subpoena and after the motion was denied, appealed to the Supreme Court. Id. On appeal, the eyewitness argued that the consequences of the trial court’s order were imminent and irreparable because upon release of her medical records, the confidential nature of those documents would be irremediably breached. Id. at 6.
Agreeing with the eyewitness, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s order “possesse[d] the requisite element of finality and potential for irreparable harm to warrant . . . immediate review.” Id.