In Re K.L. & J. Ltd. Partnership
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9846
Tex. App.2010Background
- Bella Viveros sues former employer K.L. & J. Limited Partnership and David Torres for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, unlawful employment practices, sexual assault, IIED, negligent training and supervision.
- Relators seek to compel Viveros to answer deposition questions on citizenship/alienage status and the authenticity of the social security number she provided.
- Relators seek to amend Viveros's petition to include the last three digits of her SSN and driver's license under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 30.014.
- Trial court denied the motions to compel and granted Viveros’s motion to quash and for protective order after hearings in Oct.–Dec. 2009.
- The TEX appeals court conditionally grants mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to compel SSN-related deposition questions and to lift the protective order on employment records.
- The court notes the remaining issues do not warrant mandamus relief and that the SSA/employee-record discovery remains subject to further proceedings if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying compel of SSN authenticity questions | Viveros provided an SSN; authenticity is relevant to identity and background | Questions invade privacy and are not properly discoverable | Relators established abuse of discretion; mandamus granted to compel SSN questions |
| Whether relators have an adequate remedy by appeal regarding citizenship/alienage questions | Answers are necessary to impeach credibility and assess defensibility | No adequate showing of how citizenship info would affect defense | Relators failed to show lack of adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus denied on this ground |
| Whether the court erred in not requiring amendment of petition with SSN digits under § 30.014 | Statute mandates including last three digits of SSN on initial pleading | Court may order amendment but is not mandated to do so | Trial court did not abuse discretion; mandamus denied on this ground |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in quashing employment-record discovery and issuing a protective order | Some records are relevant to harassment/claims history; information could be discoverable | Records are personal/confidential and not demonstrably protectable | Trial court abused its discretion; mandamus relief granted to allow limited discovery of employment records |
Key Cases Cited
- In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (discovery scope and abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (adequacy of remedy by appeal in discovery context)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus relief limits and standards)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard of review; abuse of discretion)