law-mandamus-discovery-orders

law-mandamus | discovery mandamus | mandamus vs. interlocutory appeal | mandamus standard |
common errors in mandamus petitions | mandamus petition requirements | mandamus against public official |
venue mandamus | mandamus based on trial court's failure to rule on motion |

MANDAMUS STANDARD

To demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court committed a clear
abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317
(Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to correctly apply the law. Ford Motor, 165 S.W.
3d at 317; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Even if the area of law is
unsettled, the trial court abuses its discretion in reaching an erroneous legal conclusion. Huie v. DeShazo,
922 S.W.2d 920, 927-28 (Tex. 1996)

Mandamus Standard Mandamus relief is appropriate only if a trial court abuses its discretion and no
adequate appellate remedy exists. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003). Mandamus relief is
available if the trial court abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal
principles, when there is no other adequate remedy at law. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40
(Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to
amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re
Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005).

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and
(2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). The Texas Supreme Court has determined that, under the
amended rules of appellate procedure, an indigent party may obtain the record pertaining to the trial court's
ruling sustaining the contest to his affidavit of indigence and challenge that ruling as part of his appeal, and
mandamus is not the appropriate remedy. See In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737, 738-39 (Tex. 1998).
Therefore, relator has an adequate remedy through his pending appeal.

MANDAMUS RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO DISCOVERY ORDERS

Mandamus Standard Mandamus relief is appropriate only if a trial court abuses its discretion and no
adequate appellate remedy exists. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003). The heavy burden of
establishing an abuse of discretion and an inadequate appellate remedy is on the party resisting discovery.
Id. The scope of discovery is largely within the trial court‘s discretion. In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d
938, 941 (Tex. 1998). Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3 permits a party to ―obtain discovery regarding
any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates
to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party.‖ Tex. R.
Civ. P. 192.3.

Scope of Discovery

An order that compels overly broad discovery is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper
remedy. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995). Because discovery is limited to
matters that are relevant to the case, requests for information that are not reasonably tailored as to time,
place, or subject matter amount to impermissible ―fishing expeditions.‖ See CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152;
Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995). Requests for production must be ―reasonably
tailored to include only matters relevant to the case.‖ In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.
1998). However, ―[a] reasonably tailored discovery request is not overbroad merely because it may include
some information of doubtful relevance.‖ Id. The supreme court rejected on overbreadth grounds discovery
requests that encompass time periods, products, or activities beyond those at issue in the case. See K Mart
Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (in case involving the plaintiff‘s abduction from the
defendant‘s parking lot, request for description of all criminal conduct at the location during the preceding
seven years held overbroad); Dillard Dep’t Stores, 909 S.W.2d at 492 (in case of false arrest at a Houston
department store, request for every claims file or incident report from every store in the company‘s chain
involving false arrest, civil rights violations, and use of excessive force held overbroad); Texaco, 898 S.W.2d
at 814–15 (in case involving exposure to toxic chemicals that allegedly caused asbestos-related disease,
request for ―all documents written by [defendant‘s safety director] that concern[ed] safety, toxicology, and
industrial hygiene, epidemiology, fire protection and training‖ held overbroad); General Motors Corp. v.
Lawrence, 651 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. 1983) (in case involving allegedly defective fuel filler necks in a
particular model truck, requests concerning fuel filler necks in every vehicle ever made by General Motors
held overbroad).

C LAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | INDEX TO H OUSTON CASE LAW PAGES |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE