Domestic-relationship PPOs; MCL 600.2950; TM v MZ; Ex parte PPO; MCL 600.2950(12); Pickering v Pickering; Motion to modify or rescind; MCL 600.2950(13); MCR 3.707(A)(1)(b); Hearing on the motion; MCL 600.2950(14); MCR 3.707(A)(2); “Shall”; In re Guardianship of Redd; Discovery; People v Lemcool (After Remand)

Holding that the trial court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing was erroneous and required reversal of its order denying respondent’s motion to terminate the ex parte PPO, but that its denial of her motion to compel discovery was appropriate, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Petitioner sought a PPO on the basis that respondent had shot him in the stomach and should not be allowed to return to their residence (the trial court in the criminal case had ordered her to have no contact, but eventually allowed her to return). The trial court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for a lack of service. But it adjourned the motion to modify or terminate the PPO and allowed for further documentation and briefing. Respondent then filed a motion to compel petitioner’s deposition after he did not appear for a scheduled remote deposition. After a second hearing, the trial court denied the motion to modify the ex parte PPO and the motion to compel discovery. It also denied the motion to terminate the ex parte PPO and respondent’s request for an evidentiary hearing, reasoning it would not consider lifting the PPO until the criminal matter was resolved. On appeal, the court agreed with respondent that the trial court erred by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion to terminate the ex parte PPO. Respondent “included a request for a hearing in the motion to modify or terminate the PPO that she filed within 14 days after she received actual notice of the ex parte PPO. At that point, the trial court was then required to schedule an evidentiary hearing ‘within 14 days after the motion [wa]s filed.’” As such, the trial court erred by not scheduling or holding an evidentiary hearing on respondent’s motion. However, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred by denying her request to compel petitioner’s deposition, noting that while the “pending criminal case did not excuse the [trial] court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, it was a reasonable basis for denying respondent’s motion to compel discovery.”