Ex parte Mobile Fixture and Equipment Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 August 1993
• Citation: 630 So.2d 358
• Parties: Ex parte MOBILE FIXTURE AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. (In re MOBILE FIXTURE AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. ALLIED ALARMS, INC., et al.). 1921109.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 358

630 So.2d 358

Ex parte MOBILE FIXTURE AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. (In re MOBILE FIXTURE AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. ALLIED ALARMS, INC., et al.).

1921109.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 27, 1993.

Joseph C. Sullivan, Jr. and Richard E. Corrigan of Hamilton, Butler, Riddick, Tarlton & Sullivan, P.C., Mobile, for petitioner.

Steven L. Terry of Sintz, Campbell, Duke & Taylor, Mobile, for respondents.

HOUSTON, Justice.

The plaintiff/petitioner, Mobile Fixture and Equipment Company, Inc., is a wholesale supplier of restaurant fixtures and equipment located in Mobile, Alabama. The defendant/respondent, Allied Alarms, Inc., is a locally owned alarm and security service in Mobile, Alabama, with a branch office near Birmingham, Alabama. Allied provides a variety of security and alarm services for approximately 5400 residential and commercial customers. Allied contracted with approximately 500 of its customers to provide a key response service in which Allied retains a key to the customer's building; upon receiving an alarm signal, Allied dispatches a security guard to the premises in order to enter and inspect for burglary, vandalism, or other security-related matters.

Allied contracted to provide security services for Mobile Fixture, with the security services contract most recently renewed on May 26, 1989, for a term of three years. In the contract, Mobile Fixture subscribed to, among other things, the key response service. Through the key response service, after an alarm signal was received from Mobile Fixture, the central office immediately dispatched an Allied guard, notifying the guard of the appropriate coded key number needed to enter the building to inspect for security problems that could have caused the alarm. The guard also waited for the arrival of the area police, who were also notified of the alarm.

Mobile Fixture maintains that throughout the course of its relationship with Allied, Mobile Fixture suffered "a high rate of 'shortage' in the inventory which it holds in its warehouse before sale to its customers" and also had a large number of false alarms to which Allied's employees responded. According to Mobile Fixture, it experienced approximately $365,000 worth of inventory and property loss from its merchandise warehouse that was caused by Allied Security guards' responding to false alarms through Allied's key response service. In order to determine the cause of the losses, Mobile Fixture installed hidden cameras in its warehouses, without notifying Allied. After reviewing a videotape that reflected what appeared to be two Allied security guards entering the premises and removing certain merchandise from the warehouse, Mobile Fixture sued Allied and numerous fictitiously named defendants, alleging theft and conversion, breach of contract, negligent and/or wanton performance of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and/or wanton supervision and hiring, and fraudulent suppression, and alleging that Mobile Fixture was a third-party beneficiary to a security bond or insurance policy covering the actions of the security guards. Mobile Fixture served interrogatories and requests for production upon Allied, some of which Allied answered or complied with, and others to which it objected and did not answer or comply with. Mobile Fixture filed a motion to compel responses and production, which the trial court denied.

The interrogatories and requests for production that were the subject of the motion to compel (and that are the subject of this mandamus petition), and the objections thereto, are as follows:

"Interrogatory # 4. Identify by name, address and telephone number all customers of Allied Alarms during the five (5) years next preceding May 26, 1992."

"[Objection to] Interrogatory # 4. [Allied] objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, includes irrelevant and immaterial information and requests information that is confidential customer information."

________

"Interrogatory # 23. State if any investigation was made on employees in general from May 26, 1989 until May 26, 1992 including but not limited to polygraph testing."

"[Objection to] Interrogatory # 23. [Allied] objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and to the extent that it calls for confidential or privileged information. Without waiving this objection, [Allied] will produce information in response to a more specific discovery request."

________

"Request for Production # 5. Customer list of all Allied Alarms, Inc. commercial or residential customers including name, address and telephone number from the period May 26, 1989 until May 26, 1992."

"[Objection to] Request for Production # 5. [Allied] objects to production of the requested documents as the request is overbroad, overburdensome, is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and is highly confidential information of [Allied's] clients."

________

"Request for Production # 7. All field audits, investigative reports or management review of Allied Alarms, Inc. employees for the five (5) years next preceding May 26, 1992."

"[Objection to] Request for Production # 7. [Allied] objects to the request as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information and the information is confidential information regarding [Allied's] client. In addition, the requested information is protected by the work product and/or attorney/client privilege."

(See Petitioner's brief, pp. 4-5; Respondent's brief, pp. 3-4.)

In the interrogatories and requests for production, Mobile Fixture also asked Allied to identify all complaints that it had received concerning its employees in the last five years. Allied listed five complaints, including the Mobile Fixture complaint, and subsequently supplemented the list with two more complaints.

Mobile Fixture petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing "Judge McRae to vacate his denial of [Mobile Fixture's] motion to compel and to order him to compel [Allied] to answer interrogatories # 4 and # 23 and to produce all of the documents requested by request[s] for production # 5 and # 7, including the complete customer list of all [Allied] customers and all investigative reports of [Allied] on its employees."

Mandamus, an extraordinary remedy that will not be issued unless the movant has a clear, undisputable right to the relief sought, see Ex parte Rudolph, 515 So.2d 704 (Ala.1987), is the proper means of review to determine whether a trial court has abused its discretion in ordering discovery, in resolving discovery matters, and in issuing discovery orders, see Ex parte Allstate Ins. Co., 401 So.2d 749 ...