Opinion
No. 09-10-00493-CV
Submitted on November 15, 2010.
Opinion Delivered December 30, 2010.
Original Proceeding.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling production of documents responsive to overly broad requests for production. We hold that the document requests at issue are facially overbroad. Accordingly, we conditionally grant mandamus relief.
Although the scope of discovery generally is within the trial court's discretion, the trial court must impose reasonable discovery limits. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Discovery requests must show a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid in the resolution of the dispute; accordingly, the requests must be tailored to include only relevant matters. Id. at 151-53. Requests that are overly broad and that seek irrelevant information are not permissible and the trial court abuses its discretion by ordering discovery that exceeds that permitted by the rules of procedure. Id. "A central consideration in determining overbreadth is whether the request could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid including tenuous information and still obtain the necessary, pertinent information." Id. at 153.
Dennis and Jenele Carlson are suing, among others, insurance carriers GMAC Direct Insurance Company, Ranchers Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, and Homesite Lloyds of Texas on various tort and contract theories in connection with the Carlsons' claim on their homeowners' insurance policy following Hurricane Ike. The trial court considered the Carlsons' motion to compel on written submission and granted the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Relators seek mandamus relief from the trial court's order compelling production of (1) "[a]ll computer files, databases, electronically-stored information or computer-stored information regarding property damage, hurricane damage, water damage and/or roof damage that have been [compiled], prepared and/or supervised by Defendant, whether or not they are in Defendant's possession or in the possession of another entity[,]" (2) "[a]ny and all correspondence from Defendant to and from vendors regarding any instructions, procedures, changes, training, payments and billing for property, property damage, hurricane, flood and catastrophe claims for 2000 through the present, including but not limited to computer disk, e-mails, paperwork and manuals[,]" and (3) "[a]ll documents and communications, including electronic, between any engineer(s) or engineering company(s), used to evaluate this Plaintiffs' claim(s), or other person(s) used in handling Plaintiffs' claim(s) and Defendant in the last five years regarding, in any way, the investigation of a homeowners residence, commercial building or church involving damages to the structures or its contents."
The Carlsons contend they were harmed by the Relators' "deliberate business practice of fraudulently adjusting property-damage claims in an outcome-oriented manner so as to minimize the amounts they paid out under the homeowners' policies they issued." Thus, they argue, their requests are designed to produce evidence of a company-wide business practice for which the Carlsons may recover statutory additional damages and exemplary damages. Rather than tailor the request to include the electronic information actually used in adjusting the Carlsons' claim, the request asks for any electronically-stored information regarding any property damage without regard to time or geographical location. The tenuous connection to the Carlsons' claim is that if an analysis of the data shows that it is somehow "skewed" in favor of the insurance company, then the Carlsons might be able to use that information to establish exemplary damages. This is precisely the sort of fishing expedition that harvests vast amounts of tenuous information along with the pertinent information that was used in adjusting the Carlsons' claim.
The request for correspondence is similarly expansive. Without regard to geographical location, the request encompasses all correspondence to and from all vendors over a ten-year period, concerning anything remotely connected to property damage claims. The Carlsons justify their request as designed to obtain evidence that Relators had a business practice of conducting outcome-oriented investigations such that their reliance on any investigation by an agent would be unreasonable. Again, the request sweeps up vast amounts of tenuous information along with the pertinent information regarding a vendor retained for the Carlsons' claim. Although the information might reveal that Relators failed to adequately train their agents, the request is not tailored to include only the evidence that may be relevant to this case.
Finally, the request for documents and communications between any engineer or engineering company used to evaluate the plaintiffs' claims at least mentions the plaintiffs, but the request goes on to include any investigation of damage to any building. The Carlsons argue that if the representatives had a history of improperly valuing claims or applying faulty analyses, it would not be reasonable for Relators to rely on their work in this case. But the request includes information that has nothing whatsoever to do with the insurance claim at issue in this case. Although the Carlsons can imagine some use for the vast amount of information they are seeking, the request is not tailored to include only the evidence relevant to the case.
The Carlsons cite Philip Morris USA v. Williams as support for discovery requests designed to produce evidence of reprehensibility. See 549 U.S. 346, 355, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (2007). That case held that a jury may not punish for the harm caused to nonparties and that states cannot authorize procedures that create an unnecessary risk of punishing a defendant for harm done to others under the rubric of reprehensibility. Id. at 355-57. Williams provides no support for justifying unfettered discovery into the general business practices of the defendants.
The trial court abused its discretion in ordering Relators to comply with requests for production that are overly broad on their face. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for a discovery order that compels overly broad discovery. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995). We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. We are confident that the trial court will vacate the order to compel production of documents under the three discovery requests at issue here. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to take appropriate action in accordance with this opinion.
We do not reach Relators' alternative argument that the discovery requests are unduly burdensome.
PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.