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

992 So.2d 1252

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).

1051184.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 25, 2008.

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.

WOODALL, Justice.¹

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.

I. Facts

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:

"2. Any and all documents, including but not limited to, internal memoranda, press releases, notes, e-mail or correspondence circulated within Vulcan regarding this case and/or the verdict in this case.

"....

"8. Any and all balance sheets, income statements and/or financial statements generated by Vulcan for the past five (5) years.

"....

"10. Any and all documents, including but not limited to memoranda, reports and/or correspondence, whether prepared by you, your agents, employees or attorneys, that were provided to independent auditors and/or consultants regarding any other litigation against Vulcan in preparation of the Financial Reports, Annual Reports, and/or other required reports relating to Vulcan's finances for the past five (5) years or since this case has been pending, whichever is greater.

"11. Federal corporate tax returns for Vulcan for the past five (5) years.

"12. State corporate tax returns for Vulcan for the past five (5) years.

"13. Audit reports prepared by Vulcan's independent auditors for the past five (5) years.

"14. All documents and/or working papers provided to you by your independent auditors which were used to determine `materiality' in the audited financial statements during the periods described above.

"....

"19. Any and all copies of the Minutes of each meeting of the Vulcan Board of Directors or Trustees during the past five (5) years.

"....

"21. Any and all reports and any and all statements which Vulcan has made to its stockholders within the past five (5) years.

"22. Copies of the complaints in each lawsuit filed within the last five years in which Vulcan is named as a defendant.

"....

"24. Any and all documents, records, correspondence, e-mails, memos, statements, reports, papers or typed, printed or handwritten materials relating to the knowledge which Vulcan and/or its directors, managers or executive officers may have had during the past five (5) years with regard to verdicts and/or judgments rendered in the courts of Alabama during the past five (5) years.

"25. Any and all pleadings and/or documents that Vulcan has filed in other cases in the State of Alabama in which the excessiveness of punitive damages was challenged.

"26. A copy of all pleadings or documents that Vulcan has filed (or someone has filed on its behalf) in the state of Alabama or any other state in which it argued (even indirectly) it was entitled to punitive damages.

"27. An itemization of the fees and expenses paid to any attorney for the defense of this case.

"....

"35. Please supplement with updated information all your previous responses to requests for production."

Blizard also served Vulcan with postjudgment interrogatories ("the interrogatories"). The interrogatories stated, in pertinent part:

"20. State whether or not there have been, or are now, lawsuits pending against Vulcan claiming injury or damage from wrongful interference with business or contractual relations, improper restraint of trade, and/or improper price fixing. If so, for each lawsuit state:

"(a) the date of the filing of each such lawsuit;

"(b) the court in which such lawsuit was filed;

"(c) the nature of each such lawsuit;

"(d) the names and addresses of all parties, including plaintiffs and defendants to each such lawsuit;

"(e) a full and complete statement of the substance of all claims and allegations of each such suit;

"(f) the jurisdiction in which each such action was filed;

"(g) the jurisdiction in which each such action came or will come to trial if different from answer in (f);

"(h) the disposition of each such lawsuit; and

"(i) the name and address of each person or entity having possession, control or custody of any or all records relating to such legal action against this defendant involving such a claim or similar claim.

"....

"23. Please state the total amount of attorney's fees and expenses reimbursed and/or paid to your attorneys in this case. ...

"....

"24. Has Vulcan ever acquired rights in property which included an existing rock quarry and that another entity was operating (e.g., selling ag lime, producing rock for sale, etc.) in at the time of said acquisition? If so, please identify all such quarries and provide the name, address, and telephone number of each entity working in that quarry at the time of Vulcan's acquisition."

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.

II. Standard of Review

"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...