COA affirms confidentiality of deposition in litigation between Greek brothers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Discovery materials protected in Indiana courts under a protective order cannot be used in litigation between two brothers in Greece, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

Constantinos and Theodore Angelopoulos are brothers and Greek citizens who live in Greece. Their father, Panayiotis Angelopoulos, founded several companies that owned the assets of the brothers’ combined business activities before his death in 2001.

After their father’s death, the brothers were each entitled to three-eighths of his estate. Constantinos Angelopoulos believed one of his father’s companies, Beta Steel, which has its main facility in Portage, Indiana, belonged in the estate, thus entitling him to three-eighths of that company. However, Greek courts founds Panayiotis Angelopoulos had, inter vivos, transferred ownership of Beta Steel to Theodore Angelopoulos.

Constantinos Angelopoulos filed a claim in Porter Superior Court in 2008, against asserting he had a right to three-eighths of the company under Greek inheritance laws. During discovery, the parties entered into a protective order which provided that the parties could designate certain documents that included trade secrets as confidential and that such documents could only be used “solely for the purposes of this action.”

After the Porter Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Constantinos Angelopoulos appealed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in a previous ruling. The appellate court held that the rulings in Greek courts found that Theodore Angelopoulos was the sole owner of Beta Steel, and on the grounds of res judicata and comity, the matter could not be relitigated in Indiana.

However, the appellate court also reversed the trial court’s order regarding public access to Theodore Angelopoulos’ depositions, which had earlier been designated as confidential in part. The matter was remanded with instructions for Theodore Angelopoulos to prove by clear and convincing evidence that portions of his deposition should not be open to public access under Administrative Rule 9.

On remand, Constantinos Angelopoulos filed a motion to modify the protective order, seeking permission to use discovery materials that had been designated as confidential in pending or future action between he and his brother in Greece. Meanwhile, Theodore Angelopoulos presented evidence to the court that revealing the details of his sale of Beta Steel would increase threats against his family.

In a February 2016 order, the Porter Superior Court denied Constantinos Angelopoulos’ motion to modify the protective order while finding that his brother had adequately proven portions of his deposition should remain confidential.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in a Wednesday opinion, with Judge Paul Mathias writing that based on the evidence Theodore Angelopoulos presented, “the trial court could reasonably conclude that Theodore had met his burden of showing that the release of his deposition testimony would create a significant risk of substantial harm to Theodore and his family.”

Further, Mathias wrote that Constantinos Angelopoulos’ motion to modify the protective order showed he “merely desires to use Indiana’s generous discovery process to discover information that would apparently not be permitted in Greece and be allowed to use these materials in Greece.”

“Unless and until a Greek court decides that such materials would be admissible in the proceedings before the Greek court, a decision to which our courts would afford comity, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by declining Constantinos’ request to modify the protective order,” Mathias wrote.

The case is Constantinos P. Angelopoulos v. Theodore P. Angelopoulos, Neptunia, Inc., Transmar Corp., Didiac Establishment, Beta Steel Corp., and Top Gun Investment Corp. II, 64A03-1603-PL-518.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.