In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 557 S.W.3d 851

Background

Plaintiff Robert Perry was injured in a five-vehicle collision involving an unidentified 18-wheeler; he sued his insurer, Liberty County Mutual Insurance Co., for uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under his policy.
Liberty stipulated that a valid UIM policy existed, it covered Perry, and the occurrence was covered, narrowing disputed issues to (1) the unidentified truck driver’s liability and (2) Perry’s damages.
Perry served a notice to depose Liberty’s corporate representative on broad topics including coverage, conditions precedent, his damages, Liberty’s interrogatory responses and other discovery responses.
Liberty moved to quash and for protection; the trial court denied relief and issued a Deposition Order compelling Liberty’s representative to testify on multiple topics (some later struck by the trial court).
Liberty sought mandamus relief in the appellate court, arguing the Deposition Order was overbroad, sought irrelevant or duplicative information, and imposed undue burden that could not be remedied on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Liberty must produce a designated representative for deposition on the listed topics	Perry argued the representative could testify about policy applicability, conditions precedent, how the crash occurred, damages, and Liberty’s discovery answers	Liberty argued the topics were overbroad, included irrelevant matters, and sought information duplicative of documents Plaintiff already has or can obtain from more direct sources	Court held the Deposition Order was an abuse of discretion and granted mandamus to vacate it and quash the deposition
Whether the deposition topics were reasonably tailored to the core UIM issues	Perry contended topics related to liability and damages and verification of discovery are properly discoverable	Liberty asserted UIM claims focus on third‑party liability and plaintiff’s damages, and Liberty’s employees lack direct knowledge; many topics exceed that scope	Court held discovery in UIM cases is narrower (third‑party liability and damages) and the order was not limited to those topics
Whether information sought was obtainable from less burdensome sources	Perry relied on Liberty’s signed discovery and verification to justify deposition	Liberty pointed out Plaintiff already had access to his medical records, police report, valuation, recorded statement, and other witnesses whom he could depose	Court held much of the information was duplicative or obtainable from more convenient sources, making the deposition unduly burdensome
Whether Liberty had an adequate remedy by appeal	Perry implied the order was proper and appeal would suffice if error existed	Liberty argued mandamus is required because compelled irrelevant discovery is harassment and depositions cannot be "untaken" on appeal	Court held Liberty lacked an adequate appellate remedy and mandamus relief was appropriate

Key Cases Cited

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard for discovery abuse)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (trial court abuse of discretion definition)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review of legal conclusions in mandamus)
In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. 2016) (scope and limits of discovery; relevance and reasonable tailoring)
Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995) (reasonable tailoring of discovery)
In re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2006) (need for reasonable discovery limits)
In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998) (depositions must be reasonably tailored)
Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006) (UIM coverage depends on third‑party liability and damages)
Henson v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 17 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. 2000) (distinguishing UIM obligations from other first‑party claims)
In re Liberty Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 537 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (limits on deposing insurer’s claims representative when information is duplicative)
In re Issuance of Subpoenas for the Depositions of Bennett, 502 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (Rule 192.4 limits on cumulative/duplicative discovery)
In re Arras, 24 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000) (granting mandamus when depositions sought duplicative accident information)
In re Houstonian Campus, L.L.C., 312 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (discovery that is patently irrelevant may justify mandamus)
In re Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 421 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013) (depositions cannot be undone on appeal)