In re Sun Coast Res., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 October 2018
• Docket Number: NO. 14-18-00356-CV,14-18-00356-CV
• Citation: 562 S.W.3d 138
• Parties: IN RE SUN COAST RESOURCES, INC., Relator
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

562 S.W.3d 138

IN RE SUN COAST RESOURCES, INC., Relator

NO. 14-18-00356-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed October 4, 2018

Norman Snyder, Jr., Jessica Van Rooy, Jessica Z. Barger, Wanda Fowler, Brittany Greger, Houston, TX, for Relator.

Kelsey E. Del Rio, Matthew J. Mussalli, The Woodlands, TX, for Real party in interest.

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Brown, and Jewell.

OPINION

Kevin Jewell, Justice

Relator and defendant below, Sun Coast Resources, Inc., seeks mandamus relief from parts of an order signed on May 29, 2018 compelling the production of documents responsive to certain requests for production. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. The underlying suit is a wrongful death action against Sun Coast. Real parties in interest allege that Sun Coast’s negligence in offloading gasoline to an above-ground storage tank caused a fire and resulted in the death of Samuel Oliver.

In its petition for writ of mandamus, Sun Coast argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the production of: (1) a log or list of "all hazardous materials spills" between January 1, 2013 and the present, and related documents, because the order is overbroad; (2) portions of certain current and former employees' personnel files because the order is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) certain electronic communications regarding the incident, including e-mails and text messages, that Sun Coast contends it has already produced or does not possess or control.

We conclude that portions of the challenged order constitute an abuse of discretion. We conditionally grant the petition with respect to:

(1) the portion of the May 29 order compelling production of the hazardous materials "spill log" and related documents under request for production numbers 1, 3, 7, 10, and 37, but only in part, as more fully explained below;

(2) the portion of the May 29 order compelling production of personnel files for Michael Pace, Bill Tilger, Jennifer Weldon, Art Flanagan, Rob Wynn, and Tammula Wynn under request for production number 17; and

(3) the portion of the May 29 order compelling production of electronic communications responsive to requests for production numbers 21–28.

We deny the petition as to all other requested relief. Our stay orders of May 4, 2018, May 10, 2018, and September 25, 2018, are lifted.

Factual and Procedural Background

The real parties-in-interest and plaintiffs are Jodi Oliver, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Samuel Oliver, Deceased, Jamie Oliver Scholhamer, and Katie Elizabeth Oliver ("Plaintiffs").

Plaintiffs allege the following in their First Amended Original Petition. Samuel Oliver ("Oliver") and his wife lived on the property where the incident occurred. Situated on the property were three above-ground 500-gallon tanks for storing diesel and gasoline, which Oliver used to store fuel for operating various equipment in maintaining his property. On April 7, 2016, Sun Coast delivered gasoline to Oliver’s property.

Sun Coast’s driver, Luis Marcano, was offloading gasoline from the tanker truck to the first of the three 500-gallon storage tanks when Oliver began using a propane mosquito fogger in the vicinity of the tanks. According to Plaintiffs, gasoline began to overflow from the tank and an explosion occurred. Oliver later died due to injuries from the fire.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Sun Coast and alleged causes of action for negligence and gross negligence, including claims of negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of Marcano. Among other things, Plaintiffs contend that Marcano was negligent in failing to safely deliver and offload gasoline, failing to adequately monitor the delivery due to inattentiveness, failing to prevent persons nearby from smoking or using an open flame, and failing to employ an automatic shut-off or spill prevention mechanism. Plaintiffs allege that Marcano’s or Sun Coast’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs' injuries.

Plaintiffs served Sun Coast with requests for production. Sun Coast asserted objections but produced some responsive documents. We detail the requests at issue later in this opinion. Plaintiffs moved to compel certain responses. Following a series of hearings and motions to reconsider, the trial court signed an order compelling production on May 29, 2018, which is the subject of this mandamus proceeding.

Mandamus Standard

To obtain mandamus relief, a relator generally must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts.

In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P. , 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). This is true even when the area of law in question is unsettled. See Huie v. DeShazo , 922 S.W.2d 920, 927-28 (Tex. 1996). We review the trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling with limited deference. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator must establish that the trial court could have reasonably reached only one conclusion. Id.

Applicable Law Pertaining to Discovery Orders

The scope of discovery is largely within the trial court’s discretion. In re Colonial Pipeline Co. , 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) ; In re HEB Grocery Co. , 375 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding). Its discretion, however, is not unlimited. In re Am. Optical , 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is appropriate if a trial court abuses its discretion and no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re CSX Corp. , 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The party resisting discovery has the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion and an inadequate appellate remedy. Id.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3 permits a party to "obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party." Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). Generally, unprivileged and relevant information is discoverable even if it would be inadmissible at trial, as long as the information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. ; In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 507 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); CSX Corp. , 124 S.W.3d at 152. The phrases "relevant to the subject matter" and "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence" are to be "liberally construed to allow the litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial." Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo , 279 S.W.3d 656, 664 (Tex. 2009) ; Axelson v. McIlhany , 798 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1990) ; In re HEB Grocery Co. , 375 S.W.3d at 500 ; see In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 507 S.W.3d at 223.

Information is relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the information. Tex. R. Evid. 401. Information is "patently irrelevant" when reasonable minds would not differ that it has no tendency to prove or disprove any issue involved in the subject matter of the suit and the information’s irrelevancy is apparent from the face of the record. See MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Crowley , 899 S.W.2d 399, 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding) ; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. , 204 S.W.3d 831, 834 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding). We evaluate relevancy of discovery on a case-by-case basis by considering, among other things, the Plaintiff’s claims as pleaded and the instrumentality of the alleged injury. See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 375 S.W.3d at 502 ; In re Booth , No. 14-14-00637-CV, 2014 WL 5796726, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 21, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Citizens Supporting Metro Solutions, Inc. , No. 14-07-00190-CV, 2007 WL 4277850, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 18, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

As parties are not entitled to unlimited discovery, the trial court must impose reasonable discovery limits. See In re Graco Children’s Prods., Inc. , 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Requests for information must be "reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case" and may not be used as a "fishing expedition." In re Am. Optical Corp. , 988 S.W.2d at 713. For example, discovery requests must be limited to the relevant time, place, and subject matter. See In re Xeller , 6 S.W.3d 618, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Requests not so reasonably tailored as to time, place, or subject matter are overbroad as a matter of law. See, e.g. , CSX Corp. , 124 S.W.3d at 152 ; In re Am. Optical , 988 S.W.2d at 713 ; Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall , 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) ; Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson , 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) ; In re Brookshire Grocery Co. , No. 12-06-00065, 2006 WL 2036569, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 21, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). A central consideration in examining overbreadth is "whether the request could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid including tenuous information and still obtain the necessary, pertinent information." In re CSX Corp. , 124 S.W.3d at 153. An order that compels overbroad discovery is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the appropriate remedy. See In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 507 S.W.3d at 223 ; Dillard...