Discovery in an Order of Protection (OP) Case

By Joseph W. Fuson, Esq., Founding Partner — J.D., Nashville School of Law | TACDL Lifetime Member | National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 • February 4, 2019

In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, Luker v. Luker, M2018-00138-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App.2018), the Court addressed whether a respondent in an Order of Protection case had a right to conduct discovery in order to prepare for the hearing. The typical Order of Protection case is set for a hearing within fifteen (15) days of the respondent being served. Once served, typically an ex parte order of protection is issued, which many believed was intended to protect the petitioner from harm.


In Luker, the Court of Appeals stated, much differently, that the requirement of a hearing within 15 days was intended to protect the respondent from frivolous ex parte orders of protection and not intended for the protection of the petitioner. The Court also stated that it saw no barrier to a respondent requesting that the hearing be put for a definite period of time in order to request reasonable discovery as long as the ex parte order remained in place. The catch in the Court’s opinion is that discovery would be granted at the trial court’s discretion, meaning that the ability to conduct discovery in an order of protection case would be decided on a case-by-case and court-by-court basis.


This opinion is extremely important because of the nature of order of protection cases. Respondent’s get served with an order and have a court date set in a matter of days. The petitions for an order of protection are also notoriously vague and tend not to provide dates of incidents or name potential witnesses. Discovery in such cases allows a respondent to request more detailed information in the allegations so that they may properly develop a defense to each specific claim.


SHARE THIS

Latest Posts


Empty jail cell with steel bars and a bunk bed, illustrating Tennessee’s new bail amendment
By Joey Fuson & Nick Schulenberg • November 4, 2026
Tennessee voters approved Amendments 1 and 3 in 2026. Here is what the new bail rules and Marsy’s Law victims’ rights mean if you are charged with a crime.
October 12, 2026
A health insurance lien can claim part of a Tennessee injury settlement. How subrogation, the made-whole doctrine, and ERISA plans decide what you keep.
Row of electronic gaming machines in a dim room, for a post on Tennessee gambling device laws
By Mark Freeman & Joey Fuson • October 6, 2026
Gaming machines in Tennessee stores can bring device charges, felony promotion counts, seizure, beer permit loss, and new 2026 civil penalties. What to know.