law-discovery-disputes

law-discovery-disputes | discovery rules | objections to discovery | motion to compel discovery |
discovery sanctions

WHAT MAY BE DISCOVERED? A party may obtain discovery “regarding any matter that is
not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3.
The phrase “relevant to the subject matter” is to be “liberally construed to allow the litigants to
obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial.” Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798
S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1990).
STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL: We review a trial court’s actions denying discovery
for an abuse of discretion. See TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913,
917 (Tex. 1991). A trial court abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint
Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004).
ERROR PRESERVATION REQUIRED: Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (providing that to preserve
error, a party must present a timely request, motion, or objection to the trial court stating the
grounds to make the trial court aware of the complaint and obtain a ruling).
HARMFUL ERROR REVIEW: If the trial court abuses its discretion in a discovery ruling, the
complaining party must still show harm on appeal to obtain a reversal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a).
Harmful error is error that “probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment” or “probably
prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to the court of appeals.” Id.

RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISION IN DISCOVERY DISPUTES
AND ON OTHER DISCOVERY-RELATED ISSUES

I n re Lester Collins, MD, No. 07-0737 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009)(O'Neill) (discovery mandamus brought by
doctor; trial court's protective order lifted covering ex parte contacts with witnesses)(medical health care
information privacy, patient's release as condition of bringing med-mal suit, no HIPAA preemption)
IN RE LESTER COLLINS, M.D.; from Smith County; 12th district
(12-06-00078-CV, 224 SW3d 798, 05-14-07)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, No. 06-0875 (Tex. 2009)(Johnson)
(defendant entitled to opportunity to conduct discovery on affirmative defenses to breach of settlement
claim based on improper juror conduct)(Ford given chance to show it was justified in backing out of
settlement agreement because of allegedly misleading message from jury)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. EZEQUIEL CASTILLO, ET AL.; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-04-
00638-CV, 200 SW3d 217, 06-08-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Wainwright delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.

Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, No. 06-0875 (Tex. 2009)(Phil J ohnson)
(defendant entitled to opportunity to conduct discovery on affirmative defenses to breach of settlement
claim based on improper juror conduct)Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (providing that to preserve error, a party
must present a timely request, motion, or objection to the trial court stating the grounds to make the trial
court aware of the complaint and obtain a ruling). The trial court had already ruled that discovery was
not going to be allowed on the question of outside influence on the jury. Ford’s response to Castillo’s
motion for summary judgment, in light of Ford’s prior filings and presentations to the trial court and the
trial court’s rulings, sufficiently preserved Ford’s complaint that the trial court improperly denied it the
opportunity to conduct discovery.

Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, No. 07-0682 (Tex. Aug. 29,2008)(per curiam)
(credit card suit, deemed admissions, objections to discovery requests, limitations defense must be
pleaded)
UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. KENNETH F. WEAVER; from McLennan County; 10th district
(10-06-00207-CV, 231 SW3d 441, 07-11-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.

In re Kiberu, No. 07-0959 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(per curiam)(presuit discovery mandamus)

In Re Jorden, M .D ., No. 06-0369 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Brister)
(HCLC, MedMal, permissibility of presuit discovery, Rule 202 deposition)
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion

In re BP Products North America, Inc., No. 07-0119 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2008)(Gaultney, sitting by assignment)
(discovery dispute, apex deposition, Rule 11 agreement, motion to quash notice of deposition,
protective order, discovery mandamus granted)
IN RE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; from Galveston County; 1st district (01-06-00943 CV,
___ S.W.3d ___, 02-09-2007)
Opinion below: In re BP Products North America Inc., (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 9, 2007)(per
curiam)
motion to dismiss mandamus as moot, denied
stay order issued February 22, 2007, lifted
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. [Trial court judge: Susan Criss]
Justice Gaultney delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Gaultney sitting by commission pursuant to Section 22.005 of the Texas Government Code)
(Justice O'Neill not sitting)