Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson

• Decision Date: 25 May 1995
• Docket Number: 94-0696,Nos. 94-0618,s. 94-0618
• Citation: 898 S.W.2d 813
• Parties: 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 672 TEXACO, INC., Star Enterprise, Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., and Texaco Chemical Company, Relators, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Judge, Respondent. TEXACO, INC., Star Enterprise, Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. and Texaco Chemical Company, Relators, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Judge, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 813

898 S.W.2d 813

38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 672

TEXACO, INC., Star Enterprise, Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., and Texaco Chemical Company, Relators, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Judge, Respondent.

TEXACO, INC., Star Enterprise, Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. and Texaco Chemical Company, Relators, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Judge, Respondent.

Nos. 94-0618, 94-0696.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 25, 1995.

Susan E. Stevenson, B. Stephen Rice, Houston, for relators.

J. Keith Hyde, Greg Thompson, Darren L. Brown, Beaumont, for respondent in No. 94-0618 J. Keith Hyde, Greg Thompson, Beaumont, for respondent in No. 94-0696.

PER CURIAM.

Relators move for leave to file two mandamus petitions challenging discovery rulings of the trial court in the underlying litigation. The first complains of a ruling that a request for production of documents is not overly broad. The second complains of a ruling that the requested documents are not privileged. We conditionally grant relief on both petitions.

Tony Graffagnino Jr.'s widow and ten surviving children sued Texaco, Inc., Texaco Chemical Company, Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., and Star Enterprises, Inc., alleging that while Graffagnino was employed at Texaco's Port Arthur refinery from 1941 to 1984, he was exposed to toxic materials, including asbestos, from which he contracted an asbestos-related disease and died. Vernon Rieve's widow and son intervened in the action, alleging that while Rieve was employed at the same facility from 1933 to 1980, he, too, was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos and benzene, resulting in his death from cancer. Both groups of plaintiffs claim damages for defendants' gross negligence under section 408.001 of the Texas Labor Code (formerly TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8308, § 4.01, Act of Dec. 12, 1989, 71st Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 1, § 4.01, 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 1, 32, repealed by Act of Sept. 12, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 269, § 5(2), 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 987, 1273 (formerly TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8306, § 5, Act of Mar. 28, 1917, 35th Leg., R.S., ch. 103, § 5, 1917 Tex.Gen Laws 269, 271, repealed by Act of Dec. 12, 1989, 71st Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 1, § 16.01(7), 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 1, 114)).

Plaintiffs have requested production of "all documents written by John Sexton, who was corporate safety director, that concern safety, toxicology, and industrial hygiene, epidemiology, fire protection and training." Texaco, Inc., employed Sexton from 1957 to 1987, and for the last ten of those years, Sexton was responsible for corporate safety and environmental policies and procedures, and for monitoring Texaco's compliance with safety and environmental laws. (It so happens that Sexton has sued Texaco for wrongful discharge, alleging retaliation for his efforts to identify and stop violations of safety and environmental laws. That action is pending.) Texaco objected to plaintiffs' request "in that same is a fishing expedition prohibited by [Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989) ], in that it lacks specificity, requests information wholly irrelevant to any issue in this case, is overly broad, harassing and unduly burdensome." The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel production. After defendants produced 2,500 pages of documents relating to benzene, butadiene, safety, toxicology, and industrial hygiene at Texaco's facilities in southeast Texas, they moved the trial court for reconsideration. The trial court denied defendants' motion. Defendants also asserted claims of privilege, which the trial court held were waived.

Defendants argue that the request is overly broad because it is not limited to information concerning employees' exposure to asbestos and benzene (the only substances specifically mentioned in plaintiffs' pleadings), or even to toxic substances generally, or to the refinery where plaintiffs' decedents worked (Texaco has facilities throughout the world), or even to facilities like that refinery, or to the time during which Sexton had safety responsibilities (he had none for the first twenty years of his employment), or to the time decedents were employed (the request calls for documents created after decedents left the company). As examples of the overbreadth of the discovery request, defendants produced for the trial court documents concerning LPG gas handling, scaffolding, fire retardant clothing, first aid instructor manuals, safety glasses, and ignition risks of flashlights, all of which are within the scope of the request. Plaintiffs acknowledge the breadth of their request but argue that they are entitled to documents showing defendants' corporate "state of mind" not just toward exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances in one refinery or others like it during any certain period of time, but toward employee safety and welfare generally.

Discovery is limited to matters relevant to the case. TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b.2.a. In General Motors Corp. v. Lawrence, 651 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.1983), we held that in a case alleging the...