ÿWPCÄ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0—4 0DË  0J 0Ta 0^µ 0h 0r{ 0|í 0†i 0ï 1u U,ô 0d U,„U *°B)ÚDC BF AMcà° D3ËÃv~Ž 0@ vÓL AOÆn 0D4 D/x B§˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ g  DUDDÓ€Gav ª· 3|x(G(2"º$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôH¶ôXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌApril€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó'''''ÿÿdxd ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€48„2„118(b)(2),€the€Commissioner€is€authorized€to€issue€subpoenas€toÏsecure€documents€necessary€for€investigation€into€suspected€violations€of€the€Securities€Act.€€When€aÏsubpoena€issued€under€this€section€seeks€bank€records,€the€subpoena€must€be€issued€in€accordanceÏwith€the€Financial€Records€Privacy€Act,€which€provides€that€if€the€bank€customer€objects€to€the€issuance€ofÏthe€subpoena,€court€approval€for€the€issuance€of€the€subpoena€must€be€obtained.€€T.C.A.€ðð€45„10„106(2).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€·XXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà à)ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€COMMERCEà à)ÌAND€INSURANCE,€à àà àà à)ÌELAINE€McREYNOLDS,€COMMR.,à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€DAVIDSON€CHANCERY€NO.€93„2441„1Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9508„CH„00344ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€()&;+'h|› ` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌFIRSTTRUST€MONEY€SERVICES,à à)ÌINC.,€LINCOLN€INVESTMENTà àà à)ÌPROPERTIES,€INC.,€FIRSTTRUST,à à)ÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellants.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌò òROBERT€S.€PATTERSONÌBOULT,€CUMMINGS,€CONNERS€&€BERRYÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌJERRY€L.€SMITHÌDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌó óà àœÌÌÓÓà àThis›€case€was€filed€by€the€Commissioner€of€the€Department€of€Commerce€andÏÑ7€·XXdæXXdæ7ÑInsurance€in€the€chancery€court€of€Davidson€County€under€the€provisions€of€theÏTennessee€Financial€Records€Privacy€Act.€€The€Commissioner€sought€court€approvalÏto€issue€certain€subpoenas€òòduces€tecumóó€incident€to€an€investigation€of€the€defendantÏfinancial€institutions.€€The€trial€court€entered€an€order€approving€the€issuance€of€theÏsubpoenas€and€dismissing€defendantsðð€counter„claim.€€Two€of€the€defendantsÏ(FirstTrust€Money€Services,€Inc.€And€Lincoln€Investment€Properties,€Inc.)€haveÏappealed.€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  Óò òòòÌI.€€Factual€and€Procedural€Backgroundó óóóÌÓ  Óà àÌà àIn€1990,€the€State€of€Tennessee,€through€the€Commissioner€of€the€DepartmentÏof€Commerce€and€Insurance€(ð ðCommissionerðð),€€issued€an€order€of€investigationÏdirecting€an€investigation€of€FirstTrust€Money€Services,€œInc.›€The€CommissionerÏcommenced€this€investigation€after€having€received€complaints€regarding€the€allegedÏmisuse€of€investor€funds€in€a€manner€that€was€inconsistent€with€the€investmentÍobjectives€of€the€limited€partnership.€œThe›€order€of€investigation€was€amended€in€1993Ïto€add€as€targets€of€the€investigation€Lincoln€Investment€Properties,€Inc.,€FirstTrust,€Inc.,Ïand€several€individuals€associated€with€these€œcompanies.›ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€order€of€investigation,€the€Commissioner€issued€aÏsubpoena€òòduces€tecumóó€for€the€bank€records€of€the€œdefendants.›€€The€defendantsÏobjected€to€the€issuance€of€the€subpoenas.€€Consequently,€as€mandated€by€T.C.A.€ððÏ45„10„106(2),€€the€Commissioner€filed€a€petition€for€approval€to€issue€the€subpoenas.× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÏThe€defendants€filed€an€answer€to€the€petition€and€filed€a€counter„complaint,€whichÏincluded€allegations€that€the€order€of€investigation€was€facially€defective€and€that€theÏorder€infringed€upon€defendantsðð€constitutionally€protected€œinterests.€The›€defendantsÏalso€propounded€interrogatories,€requests€for€production€of€documents,€and€notice€ofÏdepositions€to€the€Commissioner.€€Prior€to€the€hearing€on€the€matter,€the€trial€courtÏgranted€the€Commissionerððs€motion€for€a€protective€order€as€to€the€requestedÏdiscovery€material€and€granted€the€Commissionerððs€motion€to€dismiss€defendantsððÏcounter„complaint.€€œFollowing›€a€subsequent€bench€trial,€the€chancellor€approved€theÏissuance€of€the€œsubpoenas.›ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€defendants€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€their€counter„complaint,€the€trial€courtððs€entry€of€the€protective€order,€and€the€trial€courtððs€approval€ofÏthe€issuance€of€the€subpoenas.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòII.€€Dismissal€of€Counter„Complaintó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€support€of€their€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€their€counter„complaint,€defendants€have€advanced€the€following€arguments:€(1)€theÏCommissionerððs€order€of€investigation€constituted€an€unconstitutional€exercise€of€stateÏpower€because€it€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€and€designed€to€harass€the€defendants;€(2)Ïthe€order€interfered€with€the€defendantsðð€constitutionally€protected€property€interest€inÏtheir€business;€(3)€the€counter„claim€properly€stated€a€cause€of€action€for€injunctiveÏrelief€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€because€the€amended€order€of€investigation€violates€theÏdefendantsðð€constitutionally€protected€right€to€work;€(4)€the€order€contravenes€the€stateÏstatute€that€requires€the€order€to€provide€notice€for€the€basis€for€the€investigation;€andÏ(5)€by€publishing€the€order,€the€Commissioner€violated€the€statute€that€affordsÏconfidentiality€to€a€private€order.€Ìà àÌà àThe€statutes€below€establish€the€procedure€for€the€investigation€into€suspectedÏviolations€of€the€Tennessee€Securities€Act.ÌÓÓœ›à8 àà8 à48„2„118.€ò òInvestigations€and€subpoenas.€ð!ðó ó€(a)(1)€TheÏcommissioner,€in€the€commissionerððs€discretion,€may:Ìà8 àà8 à(A)€Make€such€public€or€private€investigations€within€orÏoutside€of€this€State€as€the€commissioner€deems€necessaryÏto€determine€whether€or€not€any€person€has€violated€or€isÏabout€to€violate€any€provision€of€this€part€or€any€rule,Ïregulation,€or€order€hereunder,€or€to€aid€in€the€enforcementÍof€this€part...Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€All€investigations€conducted€under€this€subsection€shallÏbe€commenced€by€an€order€of€the€commissioner,€specifyingÏthe€specific€provision€or€provisions€of€this€part€which€mayÏhave€been€or€may€be€about€to€be€violated€and€the€basis€forÏsuch€investigation...Ìà8 àà8 à(b)(2)€For€such€purposes,€the€commissioner€is€authorized€toÏissue€a€subpoena€for€any€witness€or€a€subpoena€ducesÏtecum€to€compel€the€production€of€any€books,€records,€orÏpapers.€œÌ›ÌÓÓœT.C.A.›€ðð€48„2„118€(1995).ÌÓÓœ›à8 àà8 à45„10„106.€ò òService€of€subpoena€on€financialÏinstitution.€ð!ð€ó óA€subpoena€authorizing€the€production€ofÏfinancial€records€may€be€served€upon€a€financial€institutionÏonly€if...(2)...€in€the€case€of€a€nonjudicial€subpoena,€theÏcustomer€has€not€€notified€the€issuer,€within€ten€(10)€daysÏafter€service€of€a€copy€of€the€subpoena€on€the€customer,Ïthat€the€customer€objects€to€the€subpoena,€in€which€caseÏthe€issuer€must€petition€an€appropriate€court€and€obtainÏapproval€of€such€court€before€issuing€such€subpoena....ÌÓÓÌT.C.A.€ðð€45„10„106€(Supp.€1995).Ìœ›à8 àœ›à àÌà àThe€present€case€was€brought€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€45„10„106(2),€whichÏrequires€court€approval€for€the€issuance€of€a€subpoena€where€the€customer€of€theÏfinancial€institution€whose€records€are€sought€objects€to€the€issuance€of€the€subpoena.€Ìà àÌà àThe€Commissioner€argues€that€this€court€lacks€jurisdiction€to€review€theÏallegations€contained€in€defendantsðð€counter„complaint€because€the€order€approvingÏissuance€of€the€subpoenas€is€not€a€final€order€subject€to€judicial€review€under€T.C.A.€ððÏ48„2„120,€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à48„2„120.€ò òJudicial€Review.€ð!ðó ó€Any€person€aggrieved€by€aÏfinal€order€of€the€commissioner€under€this€part€may€obtainÏjudicial€review€of€the€order€in€the€chancery€court€ofÏDavidson€County€by€proceedings€in€accordance€with€theÏUniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act....ÌÌÌÓÓ€€à àAccording€to€the€Commissioner,€an€order€of€investigation€is€interlocutory€inÏnature,€and€there€is€no€statute€that€would€operate€to€confer€jurisdiction€on€chanceryÏcourts.€€Defendants€respond€that€they€have€no€other€available€forum€in€which€toÏchallenge€the€order.€€Because€there€exists€no€other€forum,€defendants€argue,€the€orderÏof€investigation€is€not€interlocutory€in€nature.€€Defendants€urge€this€court€to€exerciseÏjurisdiction€over€the€dismissal€of€their€counter„complaint€to€prevent€the€ð ðunbridledÏexercise€of€the€Stateððs€power€to€intervene€in€the€lives€of€its€citizens€from€which€there€isÏno€appeal.ððÌÌà àAlthough€we€were€unable€to€find€any€authority€on€this€precise€issue€decidedÏunder€the€Tennessee€Securities€Act,€several€federal€cases€have€addressed€the€issueÏunder€the€Federal€Securities€Act.ÌÌà àLike€the€Tennessee€Securities€Act,€the€Securities€and€Exchange€Act€of€1934€ððÏ21(a)€allows€the€Securities€and€Exchange€Commission€to€issue€an€order€ofÏinvestigation€to€determine€possible€violations€of€securities€laws.€€15€U.S.C.S.€ðð€78u(a)Ï&€(e)€€(Supp.€1995).€€Several€federal€courts€have€held€that€preliminary€orders€ofÏinvestigation€are€not€ð ðfinal€ordersðð€subject€to€judicial€review€under€ðð€25(a)€of€the€Act,Ïwhich€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€A€person€aggrieved€by€a€final€order€of€the€CommissionÏentered€pursuant€to€this€title€may€obtain€review€of€the€orderÏin€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€circuit€in€whichÏhe€resides.ÌÌÓÓ15€U.S.C.S.€ðð€78y(a)€(1993);€€òòSEC€v.€Andrewsóó,€88€F.2d€441€(2nd€Cir.€1937);ÏòòInternational€Waste€Con.€Inc.€V.€SECóó,€362€F.€Supp.€117€(D.€Hawaii€1973),€òòaffððdóó,€485ÏF.2d€1238;€òòGellis€v.€Caseyóó,€338€F.€Supp.€651€(S.D.€N.Y.€1972).€€These€courts€reasonÏthat€orders€initiating€investigations€are€interlocutory€in€nature€and€may€not€be€judiciallyÏreviewed€until€a€final€order€is€entered€as€a€result€of€the€investigation.€€òòInternationalÏWasteóó,€362€F.€Supp.€at€119.€€These€cases€recognize,€however,€that€underÏextraordinary€circumstances,€such€as€where€the€agency€has€plainly€exceeded€itsÏstatutory€authority€or€threatens€irreparable€injury€in€clear€violation€of€an€individualððsÏrights,€an€order€may€be€challenged€prior€to€the€entry€of€a€final€order.€€òòGellisóó,€338€F.ÏSupp.€651;€òòInternational€Wasteóó,€362€F.€Supp.€117.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€Tennessee€law€has€recognized€this€exception€to€the€general€rule€thatÏonly€final€orders€are€reviewable.€In€òòWolcotts€Financial€Services,€Inc.€V.€McReynoldsóó,Ï807€S.W.2d€708€(Tenn.€App.€1990),€the€court€held€that€a€cease€and€desist€order€issuedÏby€the€Commissioner€of€Commerce€and€Insurance€was€not€a€final€order€under€theÏUniform€Administrative€Procedure€Act.€€òòId.óó€at€713.€€The€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThere€is€authority€for€judicial€intervention€when€the€actionsÏor€inaction€of€an€administrative€agency€present€a€clear€caseÏof€arbitrary€disregard€of€the€rights€of€a€citizen€by€anÏadministrative€agency...€Absent€such€an€extraordinaryÏcircumstance,€the€general€rule€is€that€the€courts€will€notÏundertake€review€of€an€administrative€dispute€until€a€finalÏdecision€has€been€rendered€by€the€administrative€agency.ÌÌòòId.óó€At€712„13.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€no€evidence€that€the€Commissioner€has€acted€inÏexcess€of€her€authority€or€any€persuasive€indication€that€defendants€may€sufferÏirreparable€injury€if€required€to€produce€their€bank€records.€€We€also€reject€asÏinapplicable€defendantsðð€contention€that€we€should€assume€jurisdiction€over€theirÏcounter„claim€pursuant€to€any€exception€to€the€general€rule€that€chancery€courts€areÏwithout€jurisdiction€to€enjoin€the€enforcement€of€state€criminal€laws.€€All€additionalÏarguments€advanced€by€defendants€relating€to€the€œcounter„claim›€we€œfind›€to€be€withoutÏmerit.€€ÌÌà àWe€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€defendantsððÏcounter„claim,€but€for€a€œdifferent€reason€than›€œthat€given›€by€the€trial€court.€€Whereas€theÏtrial€court€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted,€weÏdismiss€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.Ìà àÌÓ  Óò òòòIII.€€Subpoenaóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àDefendantsðð€second€main€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏholding€that€the€Commissioner€met€its€burden€of€establishing€the€requisites€necessaryÏfor€the€issuance€of€the€subpoenas.ÌÌà àWhen€a€subpoena€is€challenged,€the€Commissioner€must€demonstrate€to€theÍcourt€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€investigation€will€be€conducted€pursuant€to€aÏlegitimate€purpose,Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€that€the€inquiry€may€be€relevant€to€that€purpose,Ìà8 àà8 à(3)€that€the€information€sought€is€not€already€within€theÏcommissionerððs€possession,€andÌà8 àà8 à(4)€that€the€administrative€steps€required€have€beenÏfollowed.ÌÌòòState€Department€of€Revenue€v.€Mooreóó,€722€S.W.2d€367€(Tenn.€1986)€(quoting€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Powellóó,€379€U.S.€48€(1964).ÌÌà àÌÌÓÓà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€Commissioner€met€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€the€above€requisites.€€At€the€hearing,€Robert€E.€Moore,€Jr.,€chief€counselÏfor€the€state€of€Tennessee,€Securities€Division,€testified€as€to€the€basis,€nature,€andÏpurpose€of€the€order€of€œinvestigation.€Moore›€testified€that€the€department€began€toÏreceive€investor€complaints€about€FirstTrust€in€1990,€and€that€the€complaints€continuedÏthrough€1993.€€œHe›€stated€that€the€complaints€related€to€improper€sales€practices€ofÏFirstTrust,€inaccurate€or€insufficient€information€about€the€products€being€purchased,Ïand€€tax€œrelief.€As›€a€result€of€these€complaints,€an€investigation€was€commenced€inÏ1992.€œMoore›€testified€that€the€purpose€of€the€subpoenas€was€to€trace€the€flow€of€fundsÏamong€the€partnerships€in€order€to€determine€whether€certain€loans€that€were€madeÏbetween€the€partnerships€complied€with€the€partnershipsðð€investment€œobjectives.ÏMoore›€testified€that€the€bank€records€sought€are€not€in€the€stateððs€possession€and€hadÏnot€been€previously€œrequested.€Moore›€also€testified€that€the€Commissioner€compliedÏwith€all€procedural€requisites€for€issuance€of€subpoenas.€€After€examining€the€record,Ïwe€agree€that€the€Commissioner€complied€with€all€administrative€steps€required€toÍeffectuate€the€issuance€of€a€subpoena.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€reject€defendantsðð€contention€that€the€amended€order€ofÏinvestigation€was€facially€defective.€€The€amended€order€states€with€sufficientÏparticularity€the€provisions€of€the€Securities€Act€that€defendants€are€suspected€ofÏhaving€violated€and€the€grounds€for€the€suspected€œviolations.ÌÌà àIt€has€been€well€stated€that:›ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àœ[a]›€decision€to€enter€into€a€field€of€commercial€activity€that€isÏvalidly€regulated€by€government€entails€an€implicit€contractÏin€which€the€private€party€agrees€to€observe€standards€andÏpractices€imposed€by€government.€This€arrangementÏshould€be€hollow€and€unworkable€if€government€could€notÏeffectively€probe€into€questions€of€compliances€and€breach.ÏOne€necessary€corollary€of€the€relationship€is,€therefore,Ïthat€those€who€engage€in€these€activities€have€implicitlyÏcontracted€to€open€their€books€to€the€government€and€alsoÏhave€agreed€to€be€examined€as€to€the€conduct€of€theseÏactivities,€at€least€when€government€has€some€basis€forÏconducting€an€inquiry.ÌÌòòGraham€Hughes,€Administrative€Subpoenas€and€the€Grand€Jury:€Converging€StreamsÏof€Criminal€and€Civil€Compulsory€Processóó,€47€VÔ€$ôÔANDÔ€$XÔ.€L.€RÔ€$ôÔEVÔ€$XÔ.€573,€584€(1994).ÌÌÌÓÓà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€approving€the€issuance€of€theÏsubpoenas.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòIV.€€Protective€Orderó óóóÌÓ  Óà àÌà àDefendantsðð€final€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€limiting€discovery€in€theÍpresent€case.€€Defendants€sought€to€procure€through€discovery€a€wide€range€ofÏinformation€concerning€documents€and€potential€witnesses.€€The€trial€court€entered€aÏprotective€order€in€favor€of€the€Commissioner,€reasoning€that€to€allow€further€discoveryÏwould€be€unwarranted,€would€delay€the€proceedings,€and€would€interfere€with€theÏCommissionerððs€authority€to€issue€investigative€subpoenas.€ÌÌà àThe€granting€or€denying€of€a€protective€order€relative€to€discovery€proceduresÏrests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€€€òòLoveall€v.€American€Honda€MotorÏCo.óó,€694€S.W.2d€937€(Tenn.1985).€€Our€review€of€œthe›€record€reveals€no€such€abuse.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏdefendants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àÌÌÌÌà à