405 S.W.3d 835
Tex. App.2013Background
- Relators seek mandamus to undo trial court order forcing production of computer/network drives and native-format documents in Houde v. Pinnacle entities.
- Houde sued PEI/PPSI and individuals for breach-related claims; discovery focused on Houde’s employment/education and related communications.
- Houde requested electronic data and native-format resumes; relators objected as overly broad, private, and confidential.
- Trial court partially granted discovery orders in 2011–2012 but did not rule on computer drives; later ordered forensic images.
- Houde moved for forensic imaging of drives and server data with scope including deleted files and metadata; amended order issued Dec 18, 2012.
- Relators seek mandamus relief arguing lack of evidence, improper scope, and privacy/confidentiality protections under Rule 196.4 and Weekley.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in ordering electronic-forensic discovery | Houde showed deficiency in production; burdens unrebutted | Relators’ production was deficient and sensitive data necessary | Yes; abuse of discretion; order vacated |
| Whether Rule 196.4 requirements were met | Houde specifically requested electronic data and formats | Requests did not meet specificity; improper scope | Yes; failed to meet Rule 196.4 specificity |
| Whether feasibility of data retrieval was shown | Retrieval feasible and necessary | No proof retrieval feasibility | Yes; court abused by not showing feasibility |
| Whether expert qualifications and access limits were adequate | Expert designated and scope adequate | No identified expert; no search limits | Yes; required limits and qualified expert; failure to identify expert was error |
| Privilege, privacy, and confidentiality protections were provided | No mechanism to screen privileged material | Implicit protections; not specified | Yes; violated by lack of privilege/log mechanism |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Weekley Homes, 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009) (intrusive electronic discovery must be tightly limited; show default, feasibility, and limits)
- In re Jordan, 364 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (written requests must specify electronic data; general requests insufficient)
- In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.—Houston 2010) (need showing expert search capability and methodology)