American Optical Corp., In re
| Citation | 988 S.W.2d 711 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-0872,97-0872 |
| Parties | 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1146 In re AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, Relator. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
John B. Wallace, Houston, Robert L. Redfearn, Jr., Thomas R. Blum, New Orleans, LA, for Relator.
Walter T. Weathers, Robert G. Taylor, II, Cletus P. Ernster, III, Robert G. Taylor, Houston, for Respondent.
This is an original mandamus proceeding. In the underlying case, 140 plaintiffs seek damages for asbestos-related injuries, claiming among other things that relator manufactured and distributed defective respiratory protection products. In response to plaintiffs' document requests, the trial court ordered relator to produce virtually every document ever generated relating to its products, without tying the discovery to the particular products the plaintiffs claim to have used. Because the order requires production well outside the bounds of proper discovery, we conditionally grant mandamus relief.
American Optical Corporation, one of the defendants below, manufactured and distributed a full line of respiratory protection equipment from 1940 until 1990. Plaintiffs, many of whom worked in shipyards, generally contend that they used American Optical's equipment, and that defects in those products contributed to their injuries.
In May 1996, plaintiffs served on American Optical a 76-page document request, containing 221 separately numbered requests. These requests ask for virtually every document which American Optical ever generated regarding its equipment. Some illustrative examples follow:
15. All photographs, reproductions, videotapes, motion picture films, color photographs or color copies of photographs for any of [your respiratory protection products] which lists contain any of the following information: manufacturers' name, brand name, type of product, ... the contents of the products, and name and address of a distributor of such products....
18. All documents that set forth the identity of the entities ... manufacturing, distributing, relabelling, supplying, selling, assembling, marketing or advertising [your respiratory protection products] which you sold or distributed....
19. All documents which describe the physical appearance of each of your [respiratory protection products] which you sold or distributed....
28. All documents which describe and all photographs, Xerox copies, color photographs, videotapes, or motion picture films, or color copies of photographs which show the physical appearance of the usual container (i.e.bags, boxes, sacks, etc.) of [your respiratory protection products]. This request includes not only your products, but all such documents in your possession or control.
29. All documents which set forth the wording of and all photographs which show any label or writing on any container of [your respiratory protection products]. This request includes not only your products, but all such documents in your possession or control.
33. All documents which would identify the name of each of [your respiratory protection products] which you relabelled after it was relabelled....
36. All photographs, color copies of photographs, video tapes, films, advertisements, product catalogues, manuals or other documents which show, illustrate, describe, refer to the contracts, refer to the uses, refer to the instructions for use, depict the containers or bags, contain warnings or cautions, refer to qualities, characteristics, capabilities, capacities and virtues of any of [your respiratory protection products] which were ... manufactured, distributed, rented, sold, relabelled, assembled, marketed, or advertised by the Defendant or any entity in which Defendant had or has any ownership interest....
108. True, correct and authentic copies of samples of all literature, sales brochures, or any other documents used in any way to advertise, or promote ... products used for respiratory protection whether written, photographic, video or electronically recorded, or reproduced or otherwise.
American Optical timely objected, contending that the document requests were overbroad because they were not tied to particular products which plaintiffs allegedly used or to the time periods of such use. At the subsequent discovery hearing, the court, with plaintiffs' agreement, modified some of the 221 separate requests. Regarding one part of request 18, for example, where plaintiffs asked for all documents setting forth the identity of distributors, plaintiffs agreed to limit the request to distributors operating in those states where plaintiffs worked. Also, plaintiffs agreed that American Optical could respond to request 18 with a list of entities, rather than producing all documents relating to those entities. The trial court, however, did not significantly limit the other examples quoted above, other than by saying that American Optical need only conduct "reasonable" searches to respond to the expansive requests. Subject to the modifications, the trial court ordered American Optical to produce the requested documents.
American Optical seeks mandamus review. The court of appeals, after initially granting leave to file and hearing oral argument, withdrew leave to file as improvidently granted and denied relief, with one justice dissenting. We have stayed production of the documents.
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that discovery may not be used as a fishing expedition. See K Mart Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Aiu Ins. Co.
...Pipeline, 968 S.W.2d 938, 942-43 (Tex.1998). 48. See, e.g., In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713-14 (Tex.1998); In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d at 942-43; K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.1996); Dillard Dep'......
-
In re Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
...omitted). Accordingly, discovery 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) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ; see also In re Xeller , 6 S.W.3d 618, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. procee......
-
In re Jacobs
...at 152. Therefore, discovery requests 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) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that discovery may not be used as a fish......
-
In re Williams
...for discovery that is 'well outside the proper bounds.' " In re Brewer Leasing, Inc., 255 S.W.3d at 711 (citing In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.1998) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam)). Discovery is generally permitted of any unprivileged information relevant to the subject o......
-
Defending and Responding in General
...required to produce documents that fall outside the scope of the relief prayed for in the complaint. See In re American Optical Corp. , 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex., 1998). 71 Moss v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 241 F.R.D. 683 (D. Kan. 2007). Generally, a court will not require a part......
-
Discovery
...by privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, comment one (citing In re American Optical Corp. 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998); K-mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996) (per curium); Dillard Dep’t Stores v. Hall , 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995) (per c......
-
Enforcement
...required to produce documents that fall outside the scope of the relief prayed for in the complaint. See In re American Optical Corp. , 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex., 1998). The Ultimate Act of Denial: One of the most important purposes behind all manner and forms of discovery is, of course, to obta......
-
CHAPTER 9 - 9-5 Interrogatory Responses
...proceeding) (per curiam); In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Fed. Corp., No. 13-16-00219-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11816, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Chr......