AMR Corp. v. Enlow

• Decision Date: 01 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 2-96-109-CV,2-96-109-CV
• Citation: 926 S.W.2d 640
• Parties: AMR CORPORATION and American Airlines, Inc., Relators, v. Hon. Paul ENLOW, Judge 141st District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Respondent. Fort Worth
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 640

926 S.W.2d 640

AMR CORPORATION and American Airlines, Inc., Relators, v. Hon. Paul ENLOW, Judge 141st District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Respondent.

No. 2-96-109-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Fort Worth.

Aug. 1, 1996.

Thompson & Knight, John H. Martin, Beverly Ray Burlingame, L. James Berglund, Allison Roseman, Dallas, for relator.

Gray Smith Noteboom, Charles M. Noteboom, Jay K. Gray, Hurst, for real party.

Before RICHARDS, BRIGHAM and HOLMAN, JJ.

OPINION

RICHARDS, Justice.

In this original proceeding, we must determine if relators AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. are entitled to mandamus relief from the trial court's orders compelling the deposition of their highest-ranking corporate officer and denying their request for a stay of the underlying case. We hold that relators are entitled to mandamus relief on the deposition but not on the stay.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 7, 1991, Robert Barber was a passenger on an American Airlines flight from Minneapolis to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. After his arrival, Barber had a traffic accident in Tarrant County with Todd Miller and Julie Davis, who were riding a motorcycle. Barber was intoxicated.

In 1992, Miller and his parents sued Barber in Tarrant County. After nonsuiting that case, the Millers sued Barber again in March 1993 in Hidalgo County and added AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. (American) as defendants, alleging dramshop negligence in serving alcohol to Barber on the flight. See TEX. ALCO. BEV.CODE ANN. § 2.02 (Vernon 1995). ¹ The Millers also added Barber's employer, M B Valuation Services, Inc., as a defendant. Davis intervened and alleged that American violated state and federal laws and that she had an implied cause of action under FAA regulations.

In June 1993, American removed the case to federal court in McAllen based on federal-question jurisdiction. In August 1993, the federal court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court and transferred venue of the case to federal court in Fort Worth.

American moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting that the plaintiffs had no federal claims and that their state claims were preempted by federal law. American then settled with Davis, leaving the Millers as the only plaintiffs.

The federal court granted summary judgment for American on the Millers' federal claims but denied summary judgment on the state claims, ruling that they were not preempted by federal law. The federal court also declined to retain the Millers' state claims and dismissed them without prejudice to refiling in state court.

In August 1995, the Millers sued again in Tarrant County, realleging their state claims. Meanwhile, both sides appealed the federal court's ruling to the Fifth Circuit, with American arguing that the federal court erred in holding that the state claims were not preempted and the Millers arguing that the federal court erred in dismissing the federal claims. Oral argument was set in the Fifth Circuit in July 1996, with a decision expected within a few months.

American moved for a stay in the trial court, arguing that if the Fifth Circuit rules that the Millers' state claims are preempted, their suit against American is barred. The trial court denied the stay, and American seeks mandamus relief from that ruling.

On the discovery front, the Millers sought the "apex" deposition of Robert Crandall, AMR's president, CEO, and chairman of the board, and American Airlines, Inc.'s CEO and chairman of the board. An apex deposition is the deposition of a corporate officer at the apex of the corporate hierarchy. Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125, 126 (Tex.1995). The Millers sought Crandall's deposition even though they had already deposed thirteen American employees on their dramshop claim and American's alcohol service policies.

The Millers filed a motion to compel Crandall's deposition, and American filed a motion for protective order with Crandall's affidavit in which he denied having knowledge of relevant facts. The trial court ordered Crandall's deposition, and American also seeks mandamus relief from that ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In deciding whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate, we recognize that mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Id. at 839.

With respect to the resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial court's discretion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision and the trial court's decision is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. at 839-40. Our review is much less deferential with respect to a trial court's determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling because a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Id. at 840. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in mandamus. Id.

A writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle to attack an order granting discovery. See Tilton v. Moye, 869 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.1994). In making the determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion, we are mindful that the purpose of discovery is to seek the truth so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex.1984). The discovery rules do not require that the information sought be admissible evidence; it is enough that the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.; see TEX.R. CIV. P. 166b(2)(a). But this broad grant is limited by the legitimate interests of the opposing party to avoid harassment or annoyance. General Motors Corp. v. Lawrence, 651 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex.1983); see TEX.R. CIV. P. 166b(5).

Mandamus will issue only where there is no adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Appellate courts will not intervene to control incidental trial court rulings when an adequate remedy by appeal exists. Id. An appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it might involve more expense or delay than obtaining a writ of mandamus. Id. at 842. A party will not have an adequate remedy by appeal when the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court's discovery error. Id. at 843.

APEX DEPOSITION

American claims that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Crandall's deposition because the Millers did not meet their burden as set forth in Garcia. There the supreme court ruled that an apex deposition cannot be compelled when a high-ranking corporate official does not have unique or superior personal knowledge and when less intrusive discovery methods have not been employed:

When a party seeks to depose a corporate president or other high level corporate official and that official (or the corporation) files a motion for protective order to prohibit the deposition accompanied by the official's affidavit denying any knowledge of relevant facts, the trial court should first determine whether the party seeking the deposition has arguably shown that the official has any unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. If the party seeking the deposition cannot show that the official has any unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information, the trial court should grant the motion for protective order and first require the party seeking the deposition to attempt to obtain the discovery through less intrusive methods. Depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, these methods should include the depositions of lower level employees, the deposition of the corporation itself, and interrogatories and requests for production of documents directed to the corporation. After making a good faith effort to obtain the discovery through less intrusive methods, the party seeking the deposition may attempt to show (1) that there is reasonable indication that the official's deposition is calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) that the less intrusive methods of discovery are unsatisfactory, insufficient or inadequate.

Garcia, 904 S.W.2d at 128.

American asserts that the Millers did not and cannot show that Crandall has any unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. Crandall says in his affidavit that he does not have personal knowledge of:

the conduct, actions, or events at issue in this case;

the conduct or actions of any American Airlines employee on the flight in question;

the training of any American Airlines flight attendants;

Barber's history as a passenger on American Airlines, his consumption of alcohol on any American Airlines flight, or his actions after he deplaned from the flight in question;

any decisions related to, or any procedures for changing, American Airlines policies for serving alcohol on flights or for training flight attendants who serve alcohol; or

whether any changes to those policies have been made, either before or after the flight in question.

Crandall states that the only relationship between his duties as president, CEO, and chairman of the board and American's alcohol service policies is his supervisory role as president, CEO, and chairman of the board of the two companies. And American asserts that its alcohol service policy is that which is in the FAA regulations and that which its employees uniformly testified to in their depositions in this case: it prohibits service to any passenger who "appears to be...