in Re BDPJ Houston, LLC
420 S.W.3d 309
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Relator BDPJ Houston, LLC seeks mandamus to overturn a trial court discovery order dated August 19, 2013.
- The discovery order compelled production of confidential settlement information from the Arizona settlement.
- The underlying dispute arises from Water Rescue, Inc.'s unpaid restoration services after Hurricane Ike.
- The Manager sought documents about the location, amount, and expenditure of settlement funds, not the settlement agreement itself.
- Owner argued the requested information is not relevant to any claim or defense and is overbroad and inadmissible.
- The court granted mandamus relief conditionally to vacate the discovery order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discovery order relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence? | Owner argues lack of relevance. | Manager contends the documents are highly relevant. | Order abused; information not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. |
| Did the Owner waive its objections by not raising privilege/confidentiality? | Owner did not waive objections. | Manager argues waiver due to failure to object properly. | Owner did not waive; objections valid. |
| Does net-worth/punitive-damages discovery govern the dispute? | Owner premised on net-worth discovery. | Manager asserts punitive-damages claim; net-worth premise not dispositive. | Premise faulty; not dispositive to the mandamus issue. |
| Is there an adequate appellate remedy, justifying mandamus relief? | No adequate remedy if order forces production of marginally relevant items. | If discovery is scanted, appeal could address it. | No adequate appellate remedy; mandamus warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (scope of discovery and limits; patent irrelevancy burden can be disproportionate)
- Palo Duro Pipeline Co. v. Cochran, 785 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990) (cash settlement amounts not always discoverable; context matters)
- In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 22 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2000) (settlement terms may be discoverable; depends on relevance)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard; abuse of discretion; no adequate remedy by appeal)