in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, 545 S.W.3d 626

Background

Blanca Calderón sued Wal‑Mart alleging termination based on age or after filing a workers’ compensation claim; she served 18 interrogatories and 74 document requests.
Wal‑Mart served written objections and said it would produce additional documents if a protective order issued; it sent a proposed protective order but Calderón did not respond. Wal‑Mart moved for a protective order.
At a March 12, 2015 hearing the trial court granted Calderón’s motion to compel, denied Wal‑Mart’s protective order, and ordered full responses by March 20; Wal‑Mart represented it had largely complied and would supplement.
The trial court set show‑cause hearings (without a contempt motion filed by Calderón), found Wal‑Mart in contempt on multiple dates, assessed daily fines and awarded Calderón attorney’s fees; Wal‑Mart paid the fines and fees and sought mandamus relief.
The court of appeals stayed the contempt orders, reviewed whether the contempt orders and the March 12 discovery/protective‑order rulings were erroneous, and granted mandamus only as to the contempt orders.

Issues

Issue	Calderón's Argument	Wal‑Mart's Argument	Held
1. Validity of contempt orders (notice & findings)	Contempt orders valid because hearing occurred and Wal‑Mart had opportunity to defend through counsel	Contempt orders void for lack of personal, written show‑cause notice to the named defendants and inadequate findings of willfulness	Court: Contempt was criminal in nature and orders were void for lack of personal, timely, and specific notice to the defendants; mandamus granted to vacate contempt orders and return fines
2. Overbreadth of March 12 discovery order	Discovery within scope; Wal‑Mart waived objections by failing to present evidence at hearing	Several requests (Interrog.14, RFP21, RFP52) overbroad in time, geography, and scope; seek irrelevant or unduly burdensome material	Court: Wal‑Mart effectively abandoned objections at hearing by agreeing to produce and failed to show abuse of discretion; issue overruled
3. Denial of protective order	Denial proper because Wal‑Mart failed to show particular, specific, demonstrable injury or present evidence of confidentiality	Protective order required to shield PHI, settlement agreements, and proprietary info (HIPAA, ADA, FMLA concerns)	Court: Wal‑Mart failed to meet burden for protective order; denial was not an abuse of discretion; issue overruled
4. Monetary sanctions and refusal to stay/reconsider	Sanctions improper because based on overbroad discovery and premature without adequate findings	Sanctions appropriate for discovery abuse and failure to comply; appeal not adequate remedy because sanctions were imposed pre‑final judgment	Court: Wal‑Mart did not show clear abuse of discretion as to attorney’s fees and other sanctions (except contempt fines already vacated); issue overruled except contempt fines remitted

Key Cases Cited

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard: clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (procedural protections required for constructive contempt; civil vs. criminal contempt distinction)
In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (scope of discovery and limits on overbroad discovery orders)
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. 1989) (show‑cause notice requirements for contempt and voidness of orders rendered without adequate notice)
In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 22 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 1999) (party asserting discovery objections or privilege must present evidence when necessary)
In re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. 2002) (objections and privileges in discovery must be supported by evidence when required)
Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991) (monetary discovery sanctions generally reviewable on appeal; may lack adequate remedy when imposed pre‑final judgment)