Peeples v. Honorable Fourth Supreme Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4010,C-4010 |
| Parties | The Honorable David PEEPLES, District Judge, et al., Relators, v. The HONORABLE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
David Peeples, Judge, K. Key Hoffman, Jr., Robert L. Scott, Tinsman & Houser, San Antonio, for relators.
Stewart J. Alexander, Bayne, Snell & Krause, Andrew Cline, San Antonio, for respondents.
The motion for rehearing is overruled; the opinion dated July 3, 1985, is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted therefor.
This is an original mandamus action. Relators are Judge David Peeples, Judge of the 225th District Court in which the underlying cause of action is pending and Karen L. Harrell, defendant in that cause. They petition this court to order the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District to withdraw its order directing Judge Peeples to conduct an in camera inspection of certain records. Respondents are Dianne Carnes and San Antonio Models, Inc. Respondents contest Judge Peeples' standing in this proceeding. That question is moot since Harrell, the defendant in the underlying cause, has also filed a petition for writ of mandamus. We conditionally grant both petitions for writ of mandamus.
In the underlying cause, Respondent, Dianne Carnes, sued Karen Harrell seeking cancellation of a transfer from Carnes to Harrell of 1,000 shares of stock in San Antonio Models, Inc. Harrell answered by way of a general denial and filed a notice of intention to take the deposition of Carnes. The notice was directed to Carnes as president of San Antonio Models, Inc. and was served on Carnes' attorney. Attached to the notice was a subpoena duces tecum requesting in part the production of the following items for the period of time from March 1, 1984 to the date of the notice: bank accounts, statements, check registers, cancelled checks, check stubs, deposit and withdrawal slips, transfer orders, books of account, records of every kind and character; all correspondence, notes, memoranda, and all documents of any kind or character relating to revenues of San Antonio Models, Inc; all correspondence, notes, memoranda and documents of any kind relating to time, monies and other assets expended or contributed to Carnes, Harrell or Norma G. Klomann.
Carnes filed a motion to quash this notice of deposition. Before a hearing on that motion, Carnes also filed a motion for protective orders, alleging the documents sought were not relevant to the subject matter of the case; did not relate to any claims or defenses involved in the case; and, were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By order of December 4, 1984, Judge Carolyn Spears denied the motion for protective orders and ordered Carnes to appear, be deposed and produce the requested documents on December 18, 1984.
On December 13, 1984, San Antonio Models, Inc., filed a motion for protective orders alleging: the material requested was not material to any issues in the case; was not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence; and, disclosure of the requested items would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the corporation's personal, constitutional and property rights.
Subsequent to a hearing on the motion of San Antonio Models, Inc. held December 17, 1984, Judge Peeples denied the motion for protective orders requested by both Carnes and San Antonio Models, Inc. All parties agree that neither Carnes nor San Antonio Models, Inc. tendered to the court, either for in camera inspection or otherwise, the documents sought to be protected. Counsel for San Antonio Models, Inc. contends that he orally requested that Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Tank Co. v. Brotherton
...(abuse of discretion to grant a blanket protective order against sharing discovery with other litigants); Peeples v. Hon. Fourth Supreme Judicial Dist., 701 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex.1985, orig. proceeding) (burden is on party asserting a privilege from discovery to produce evidence concerning i......
-
Austin v. State
...one asserting it. Jordan v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 701 S.W.2d 644, 648 (Tex.1985) (orig. proceeding); Peeples v. Fourth Supreme Judicial District, 701 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex.1985) (orig.proceeding); Giffin v. The Honorable R.L. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1985) (ornig. proceeding); Came......
-
Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, D-1418
...Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1985); Hill v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 695 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.1985) (per curiam); Peeples v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 701 S.W.2d 635 (Tex.1985); Jordan v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 701 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.1985); Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916 (T......
-
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall
...("a privilege must be established to justify an exception to the general rule favoring discovery"); Peeples v. Honorable Fourth Supreme Judicial Dist., 701 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex.1985, orig. proceeding) (party seeking to exclude matters from discovery must affirmatively plead and prove a part......