Summary
holding that the trial court erred in ordering the production of documents that did not show current net worth, including income statements and old balance sheets
Summary of this case from In re ChangOpinion
No. 05-09-01407-CV
Opinion issued January 6, 2010.
Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-07-14089.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION NUNC PRO TUNC
Relator contends the trial judge erred in ordering the production of its 2006 and 2007 balance sheets and of its 2006, 2007, and 2008 income statements. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them in detail herein. The underlying case is one involving various claims by real party in interest against relator, including claims for fraud and breach of contract. Real party in interest, Anderson, seeks exemplary damages. As such, he requested discovery of net worth information. The trial court granted Anderson's motion to compel and ordered relator to produce not only a current (2008) balance sheet, but also its 2006 and 2007 balance sheets, as well as income statements from 2006, 2007, and 2008.
In order to obtain mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court has abused its discretion and that it has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has met this burden.
"[A] clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ." Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Anderson was clearly entitled to net worth discovery. See Lunsford v. Morris, 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (1988). However, he was not entitled to documents that do not show the current net worth of Ameriplan, including income statements and old balance sheets. See In re House of Yahweh, 266 S.W.3d 668, 673-74 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2008, orig. proceeding) (trial court erred by requiring production of previous years' balance sheets and other documents that did not show net worth); In re Garth, 214 S.W.3d 190, 194 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, orig. proceeding) (trial court erred by requiring production of income statements because they would not show current net worth). Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the production of those documents. Moreover, relator has no adequate remedy by appeal to correct the trial court's error. See K Mart v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (granting mandamus when trial court compelled discovery that was overbroad and irrelevant); In re Wilner, 2008 WL 667932, No. 05-07-01429-CV (Tex. App.-Dallas March 13, 2008, orig. proceeding) (granting petition for mandamus when trial court improperly required pre-suit deposition).
Accordingly, we conditionally grant the relator's petition for writ of mandamus. A writ will issue only in the event the trial court fails to vacate the portion of its November 6, 2009, Order that requires Ameriplan Corporation to produce its 2006 and 2007 balance sheets and its 2006, 2007, and 2008 income statements, and to enter an order denying plaintiff's motion to compel as to these documents.