Ex Parte Vulcan Materials Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | 1051184. |
| Citation | 992 So.2d 1252 |
| Parties | Ex parte VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY. (In re James Blizard d/b/a Blizard Construction Company and Hollywood Materials v. Jeffrey Chandler and Vulcan Materials Company). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Matthew H. Lembke and Marc James Ayers of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Birmingham; Gary C. Huckaby of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Huntsville; and Gerald R. Paulk, Scottsboro, for petitioner.
Michael A. Vercher and Thomas W. Christian of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham; John H. Graham, Scottsboro; and J. David Dodd of Scruggs, Dodd, Dodd & Bazemore, Fort Payne, for respondents.
This petition for writ of mandamus seeks review of a trial court's order regarding permissible posttrial discovery in response to a motion for a remittitur of a punitive-damages award. We deny the petition in part and grant it in part.
James Blizard, doing business as Blizard Construction Company and Hollywood Materials (collectively referred to as "Blizard"), sued Vulcan Materials Company ("Vulcan") and Jeffrey Chandler. The trial court submitted the case to a jury on counts of breach of contract, various species of fraud, intentional interference with contractual or business relations, and civil conspiracy. The jury returned a verdict for Blizard on claims of breach of contract and intentional interference with business relations, awarding compensatory damages of $130,000 and punitive damages of $3 million.2 According to the parties, the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict on February 1, 2006.
On March 1, 2006, Vulcan filed a "Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial, or, in the Further Alternative, for Remittitur and Constitutional Reduction of Punitive Damages." On March 9, 2006, Blizard served Vulcan with a postjudgment request for production of documents ("the request"). The request sought, in pertinent part:
Blizard also served Vulcan with postjudgment interrogatories ("the interrogatories"). The interrogatories stated, in pertinent part:
On April 10, 2006, Vulcan filed responses to the request and interrogatories, objecting to these discovery requests on grounds of relevance, overbreadth, undue burden, and attorney-client privilege. In particular, Vulcan objected to producing discovery of its financial wealth and condition, stating that such discovery was irrelevant because Vulcan was "expressly disclaim[ing]" reliance on its financial position as a reason for remitting the punitive damages awarded by the jury.
On April 19, 2006, Blizard filed a motion to compel Vulcan to respond to the posttrial discovery. On April 26, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to compel. Subsequently, on May 8, 2006, the trial court issued an order compelling Vulcan to respond within 21 days to the request and the interrogatories.
Eleven days later, on May 19, 2006, Vulcan filed a motion for a protective order and a conditional motion for a stay of all postjudgment discovery pending this Court's review of its petition for the writ of mandamus. In that motion, Vulcan stated that it had "already produced or [would] produce" documents sought in request no. 25, but limited to the last five years, and documents sought in request no. 26, but limited to those filed in the State of Alabama within the last five years. On May 23, 2006, the trial court denied the motion for a stay. It also denied the motion for a protective order, with one pertinent exception. It regarded Vulcan's motion as moot as it related to requests no. 25 and no. 26, stating: "[Vulcan] represented to the court that it had already answered [Blizard's] request."
On May 24, 2006, Vulcan filed its petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting an order directing the trial court to vacate its order requiring it to produce the information Blizard sought in the request and interrogatories listed above. More specifically, Vulcan argues that the trial court exceeded its discretion in ordering it to produce (1) all financial information it had generated within five years of the order; (2) information regarding Vulcan's involvement in, or knowledge of, other litigation without additional temporal or geographical restrictions; (3) minutes of meetings of its board of directors; (4) e-mail correspondence; (5) information relating to its acquisition of other quarries; (6) statements Vulcan made to its stockholders; (7) information regarding its attorney fees and litigation costs; and (8) supplementation of its preverdict discovery responses.
"The trial court has broad and considerable discretion in controlling the discovery process and has the power to manage its affairs ... to ensure the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Salser v. K.I.W.I., S.A., 591 So.2d 454, 456 (Ala.1991). Therefore, this Court will not interfere with a trial court's ruling on a discovery matter unless this Court "`determines, based on all the facts that were before the trial court, that the trial court clearly [exceeded] its discretion.'" Ex parte Henry, 770 So.2d 76, 80 (Ala.2000) (quoting Ex parte Horton, 711 So.2d 979, 983 (Ala.1998)).
"A mandamus petition is a proper means of review to determine whether a trial court has [exceeded] its discretion in discovery matters." Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 719 So.2d 194, 197 (Ala.1998). The petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus bears the affirmative burden of proving the existence of the conditions requisite for issuance of the writ. See Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So.2d 810, 813 (Ala.2003). Mandamus relief is appropriate "when a discovery order compels the production of patently irrelevant or duplicative documents, such as to clearly constitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillis v. Frazier
... ... Walker, 459 So.2d 861 (Ala.1984) ; Ex parte Hartford Ins. Co., 394 So.2d 933, 93536 (Ala.1981) ; Rebel Oil Co. v. Pike, 473 So.2d 529 ... See Ex parte Vulcan Materials Co., 992 So.2d 1252, 1260 (Ala.2008) (noting that [s]ociety's goal [in permitting ... ...
-
Boudreaux v. Pettaway
... ... discretion in failing to grant a new trial on the ground of alleged juror misconduct: In [ Ex parte ] Dobyne, [805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001) ], this Court explained the standard for granting a new ... (Defendants' brief, at p. 59.) Ex parte Vulcan Materials Co., 992 So.2d 1252, 1261 (Ala.2008) ([A] defendant cannot argue as a basis for reducing ... ...
-
Target Media Partners Operating Co. v. Specialty Mktg. Corp.
... ... The Court continued: "In Ex parte Allstate Life Ins. Co., 741 So.2d 1066, 1070 (Ala.1999), this Court stated: 177 So.3d 857 " ' ... Ex parte Vulcan Materials Co., 992 So.2d 1252 (Ala.2008). In this case, the total amount of punitive damages given ... ...
-
In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co.
... ... work product "upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to ... 79 See, e.g. , Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. , 190 So.3d 1047, 1052 (Fla. 2016) ; Ex parte Vulcan Materials Co. , 992 So.2d 1252, 1268 (Ala. 2008) ; see also Naismith v. Prof'l Golfers ... ...
-
Post-judgment Review of Punitive Damages
...post-judgment discovery concerning matters relating to the BMW guideposts and Green Oil factors. In Ex parte Vulcan Materials Co., 992 So. 2d 1252 (Ala. 2008), the court held that since the factors used in reviewing punitive damages are "for the benefit of defendants, a defendant may waive ......