K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 96-0010

• Decision Date: 18 October 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-0010,96-0010
• Citation: 40 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 50,937 S.W.2d 429
• Parties: 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 50 K MART CORPORATION and Weingarten Realty Management Company, Relators, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 429

937 S.W.2d 429

40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 50

K MART CORPORATION and Weingarten Realty Management Company, Relators, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Respondent.

No. 96-0010.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1996.

Rehearing Overruled Feb. 21, 1997.

Brock C. Akers, Evelyn T. Ailts, Phillips & Akers, Martin John de la Torre, Houston, for relators.

Chris E. Quinn, Richard J. Clarkson, Reaud Morgan & Quinn, Beaumont, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Much like Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.1995) (per curiam), and Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.1995) (per curiam), this original mandamus proceeding involves discovery that is clearly excessively broad.

Stacey Thompson sued K Mart, a Michigan corporation, to recover actual and punitive damages not exceeding $30 million for injuries she received when she was abducted from a K Mart store parking lot in Lufkin and raped. Thompson also sued Weingarten Realty Management Company, a Texas corporation. Thompson alleged that these defendants (to whom we refer collectively as K Mart) and others were negligent and grossly negligent in failing to make adequate provisions for her safety. Although the incident occurred in Angelina County, where Thompson resides, Thompson filed suit in Jefferson County.

Thompson requested K Mart to produce all documents "which relate to, touch or concern the allegations of this lawsuit", all documents "reflecting the incident made the basis of this lawsuit", and any document "which is not work product which relates in any way to this incident". K Mart objected to these requests on the grounds that they would require production of work product and are "overly broad, unduly burdensome and would require [K Mart] to turn over its entire file and gather evidence from every known source so as to try the entire case in this discovery response." The district court overruled K Mart's objections and ordered production of the documents.

One of Thompson's three requests excludes work product; the other two do not. The order compelling production does not mention work product. Since the record does not reflect any basis for compelling K Mart to produce work product, the district court erred in doing so.

K Mart argues that Thompson's requests were improper under our decision in Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989), which held:

Loftin has requested all evidence that supports Lumbermens' allegations. The request does not identify any particular class or type of documents but it is merely a request that Loftin be allowed to generally peruse all evidence Lumbermens might have. We hold that such request was vague, ambiguous, and overbroad and that the trial court was within its sound discretion in sustaining Lumbermens' objection. No one seeks to deny Loftin's right to see evidence against him, but he must formulate his request for production with a certain degree of specificity to allow Lumbermens to comply.

We think the request in the present case is distinguishable from the one in Loftin. Thompson requested all documents relating to the incident in which she was injured, not all documents which support K mart's position or which relate to the claims and defenses in the cause of action. Because the incident was an isolated occurrence, we think a reasonable person would understand from the request what documents fit the description. It would be better, of course, to be more specific. We do not hold that a request as broad as Thompson's is proper in every circumstance. Here, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing Thompson's requests, except for requiring production of work product.

Thompson also served the three following interrogatories on K Mart:

10. Please describe by date and offense type any criminal conduct that occurred in the K Mart store or parking lot in the shopping center in question during the last seven (7) years.

15. Please list all criminal activities at all property owned, leased or managed by both K Mart Corporation or Weingarten Realty Management Company in the State of Texas during the last seven years that relate in any way to the alleged failure to provide adequate security allegedly resulting in any sort of physical injury to any person.

16. Have there been other incidents at K Mart Stores owned by Weingarten Realty Management Company nationwide in which a person was abducted from the premises and raped? If so, please state the date and location of each such incident that occurred within the last ten years.

Thompson also requested production (request 19) of all documents related to interrogatory 15. K Mart objected to the interrogatories and request as being overly broad and...