In Re Bertha Arce, Relator v. the State of Texas, 07-24-00185-CV

Bertha Arce sought class certification against American National Insurance Company (ANIC), alleging ANIC routinely denied life insurance claims based only on discrepancies between insureds' applications and medical records.
After her individual claim was denied (her son died, and ANIC claimed misrepresentation), Arce amended her complaint to pursue a class action, seeking discovery relevant to class certification.
Arce served extensive discovery requests, but ANIC largely refused to respond substantively, asserting boilerplate and overbreadth objections without evidence.
The trial court issued a discovery order partially granting Arce’s motion but arbitrarily restricted discovery (limiting time period, types of documents, and amount to be produced) and did not substantively rule on the objections.
Arce petitioned for mandamus, arguing that without adequate discovery she could not seek class certification and would have no meaningful remedy on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying/limiting discovery relevant to class certification	Arce: The trial court wrongly denied critical discovery for class certification; objections lacked evidentiary support	ANIC: Plaintiff’s requests were overbroad and not relevant; discovery disproves certification	The court abused its discretion by arbitrarily limiting relevant discovery and not overruling baseless objections
Whether appeal is an adequate remedy for denied or limited discovery	Arce: Appeal is inadequate because absent discovery, she cannot meaningfully pursue class certification; omitted material won’t be in record	ANIC: Interlocutory appeal is available if class certification is denied	No adequate remedy by appeal exists; mandamus appropriate
Scope of discovery permitted before class certification	Arce: Most of her requests were tailored to Rule 42 class certification requirements	ANIC: Many requests concern case merits, not certification	Requests relevant to class certification are allowable; only clearly irrelevant/overbroad requests can be denied
Requirement for evidentiary support for objections to discovery	Arce: ANIC gave no evidence supporting objections, so court had to overrule them	ANIC: Objections appropriate regardless of evidentiary support	Objections without record evidence must be overruled unless facially overbroad

Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (parties are entitled to full, fair discovery to ensure cases are decided on the merits)
In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2021) (mandamus appropriate where discovery denial vitiates ability to present claim, and appeal is inadequate)
Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (trial court abuses discretion failing to compel discovery when the resisting party offers no evidentiary support)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (denial of discovery is not adequately remedied by appeal if the party’s ability to present claim/defense is vitiated)
In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (discovery requests must be relevant to class certification at pre-certification stage)