in Re: Arpin American Moving Systems, LLC
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14574
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Relator Arpin America Moving Systems, LLC seeks mandamus after a trial court ordered it to produce a corporate representative for deposition on two topics.
- Real parties in interest Greg Margosian sued Arpin for negligence and deceptive trade practices related to moving their household goods to the UAE, seeking damages.
- Deposition topics included 7(I): Arpin's gross revenues for 2009–2013 and 15: documentation of items produced, their purpose, and relation to claims and defenses.
- Relator objected; the trial court overruled objections by October 7, 2013.
- Court holds 7(I) is overbroad and 15 intrudes on work-product; grant mandamus conditionally if trial court does not vacate those portions.
- Relator is required to respond to current net worth discovery for exemplary damages, but the challenged requests must be limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 7(I) is overbroad for current net worth. | Real parties contend current net worth is discoverable for exemplary damages. | Arpin argues 7(I) seeks broad revenue data outside current net worth. | Overbroad; trial court abused its discretion. |
| Whether 15 invades the work-product privilege. | Real parties argue deposition method discloses factual production. | Arpin asserts it seeks the mental impressions and trial preparation protected by work product. | Protected; work product privilege applies. |
| Whether mandamus should issue to vacate or modify the order as to 7(I) and 15. | Relator seeks relief to prevent improper discovery. | Respondents contend order was proper or subject to appeal. | Conditionally granted mandamus if order not vacated as to 7(I) and 15. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Islamorada Fish Co. Tex. L.L.C., 319 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (current net worth and discovery matters in extraordinary relief)
- In re Exxon Corp., 208 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006) (work-product and scope of production in discovery)
- In re House of Yahweh, 266 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (limit net worth discovery to current balance sheet)
- K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996) (scope of discovery and limits on fishing expeditions)
- In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 22 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 1999) (rules-based approach to discovery and mandamus relief)
- In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus relief not precluded by non-final rulings)
- In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (abuse of discretion in discovery rulings)
- In re Islamorada Fish Co. Tex. L.L.C., 319 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) ((duplicate entry for emphasis))