in Re Tina Fontaine and Gerald Fontaine
09-17-00423-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Tina and Gerald Fontaine sued Charles Michael Glaze for personal injuries arising from alleged aggravated robbery and kidnapping.
- Glaze was concurrently indicted on related criminal charges.
- The Fontaines served disclosure and discovery requests on Glaze in the civil case.
- Glaze moved for a protective order, asking the court to stay all discovery from him until his criminal case was resolved.
- The trial court granted a blanket stay on all discovery from Glaze on October 26, 2017.
- The Fontaines petitioned for mandamus relief, arguing the stay improperly deprived them of necessary discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may grant a blanket stay of all civil discovery from a party asserting Fifth Amendment risks during a parallel criminal case | Blanket stay unlawfully prevents Fontaines from developing their civil case evidence | A complete stay is necessary to avoid forcing Glaze to choose between invoking the Fifth Amendment and defending the civil suit | Trial court abused discretion; blanket stay impermissible — court must consider privilege question-by-question and tailor protection |
| Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the stay | Appellate remedy inadequate because denial of core discovery harms the case | (Implicit) stay protects Glaze’s constitutional rights and preserves his criminal defense | Mandamus warranted because the stay deprived Fontaines of essential discovery and appeal would be inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus issues where trial court abuses discretion and appeal is inadequate)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (denial of discovery central to a case can make appellate relief inadequate)
- In re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2006) (scope of discovery rests in trial court discretion)
- In re Edge Capital Group, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005) (Fifth Amendment assertions should be made to specific requests; court must balance privilege and discovery on a question-by-question basis)
- Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. 1962) (Fifth Amendment protects refusal to answer, not the propounding of questions)
- In re R.R., 26 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (blanket assertions of the Fifth Amendment privilege and blanket discovery stays are improper)