Giffin v. Smith, C-3887
| Decision Date | 10 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3887,C-3887 |
| Citation | 688 S.W.2d 112 |
| Parties | C.G. GIFFIN, Relator, v. The Honorable R.L. SMITH, Judge et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is an original proceeding in which C.G. Giffin seeks to have this court issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order overruling his motion to compel answers to deposition questions and to enter an order compelling answers to these questions. We grant the motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and, pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483, without hearing oral argument, conditionally grant the relief requested.
This proceeding arises out of a lawsuit brought by Giffin against several corporations on theories of slander and breach of an employment contract. In the course of conducting pre-trial discovery, Giffin sought to depose William P. Costantini, general counsel and vice-president of one of the corporate defendants, concerning his knowledge of certain allegedly slanderous statements. Costantini refused to answer some twenty-three (23) questions relating to these statements, including two questions requesting the identities and locations of persons having knowledge of relevant facts regarding Giffin's alleged acceptance of kickbacks while he had been employed by one of the defendants. This allegation is the subject of Giffin's slander action. The basis given for Costantini's refusal to answer these questions was that the information sought was protected from discovery by either the attorney-client privilege or the investigative privilege set forth in Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b, subd. 3 d.
Giffin filed a motion to compel Costantini to answer each of these questions. The trial court ordered that Costantini answer only one out of the twenty-three questions and overruled Giffin's motion in all other respects. The court of appeals denied Giffin's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus in that court and he sought the same relief from this court.
With regard to the first two of the twenty-three questions, the trial court's refusal to compel answers from Costantini conflicts with our rules. Rule 166b, subd. 2 d specifically makes discoverable the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. The final paragraph of Rule 166b, subd. 3 expressly states that none of the exemptions from discovery contained in that division of Rule 166b shall be construed to render nondiscoverable the identity and location of any person having knowledge of relevant facts. The exemptions from discovery recognized in Rule 166b, subd. 3 include any matter protected from disclosure by privilege. The plain language of Rule 166b thus makes it clear that information concerning the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts can never be protected from discovery. The first two of the twenty-three questions at issue herein requested only the names and addresses of all persons having knowledge of relevant facts regarding Giffin's alleged receipt of kickbacks. The trial court clearly abused its discretion in refusing to compel answers to these two questions.
The remaining questions to which the trial court refused to compel answers concerned communications to which Costantini...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr. El Paso v. Niehay
...to come forward with evidence showing that the privilege was not waived through voluntary disclosure); see generally Giffin v. Smith , 688 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (recognizing that "[t]he burden is on the party asserting a privilege from discovery to prod......
-
Austin v. State
...to be protected is "confidential." Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 503(b); Strong v. State, 773 S.W.2d 543, 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Giffin v. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1985); and, United States v. Pipkins, 528 F.2d 559, 563 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 952, 96 S.Ct. 3177, 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976......
-
Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey
...sufficient to justify protection. Masinga v. Whittington, 792 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.1990). Here, that burden was not met. See Giffin v. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1985). The record contains no evidence to support a finding that the Estate should be protected from discovery. The executors ref......
-
Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Center-El Paso v. Dr. Niehay
...... privilege was not waived through voluntary disclosure);. see generally Giffin v. Smith , 688 S.W.2d 112, 114. (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (recognizing ......
-
Table of Cases
...OF CASES A-7 Geodyne Energy Income Production Partnership I-E v. Newton Corp. , 161 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. 2005), §2.02.2 Giffin v. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. 1985), §7.18 Gibson v. Ellis , 58 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.), §2.02.2 Gill Sav. Ass’n v. Chair King, Inc. , 783 S.W......
-
Discovery
...of civil procedure do not apply, and this information is never protected from discovery. Tex. r. Civ. P. 194.5; see also Giffin v. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. 1985). If requested, a party may also be required to identify the witnesses that will be called to testify at trial. Tex. r. Ci......