In Re WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INC.
392 S.W.3d 861
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- This is a five-year-old antitrust action by Bray d/b/a Sanitation Solutions against Waste Management of Texas, Inc. pending in discovery in Lamar County.
- Waste Management produced documents in PDF prior to metadata issues; metadata was carved out by explicit court order.
- In 2012 the trial court ordered production in native electronic format with metadata; mandamus sought to overturn this order.
- Texas appellate panel denied mandamus relief on five grounds: no trade secrets shown, not overbroad, not unduly burdensome, claims post-2010 not preserved, and ample appellate remedy on costs.
- The court applied a six-factor test for trade secrets, requiring proof information is secret, valuable, and protected with reasonable precautions; Waste Management failed to prove trade secrets in dispute.
- The decision restates that discovery orders may be upheld if the burden is not undue and the discovery is tailored to relevant issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade secret protection at issue in discovery | Waste Management: trade secrets are at issue | Bray: no specific trade secrets shown necessary for fair adjudication | No mandamus because trade secrets not proven (burden not shifted). |
| Overbreadth of discovery order | Waste Management: data outside Lamar County is encompassed | Bray's requests are reasonably tailored to September 2005–October 31, 2010 time frame | Order not overbroad; information outside Lamar may be reasonably relevant. |
| Undue burden of compliance | Waste Management: $5,500 cost and need to redo review; metadata issues | Costs de minimis relative to case scale; burden not undue | No undue burden; costs justified under discovery rules. |
| Preservation of post-October 31, 2010 transactions | Waste Management: issue not preserved; scheduling agreement | Not preserved for review; trial court could correct error | Issue not preserved; mandamus relief denied on this point. |
| Adequacy of remedy by appeal on cost allocation | If mandamus granted, can shift costs | Costs are remediable on appeal; do-over not mandamus-justified | Adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus relief unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus relief limited to exceptional cases; adequate remedy exists otherwise)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard in mandamus; no discretion in law)
- In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 2004) (adequacy of appellate remedy balancing test for mandamus)
- In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2006) (limited deference; law application not discretionary)
- In re Union Pac. R.R. Co., 294 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. 2009) (protective orders and trade secret considerations in discovery)