in Re: Heb Grocery Company, L.P.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-10-00533-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 7, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

HEB Grocery Company, L.P. filed a petition for writ of mandamus on October 4, 2010, to compel the trial court to vacate an order requiring the production of incident reports related to motorized vehicles used by customers in Texas HEB stores from 2004 to November 30, 2009. The Court received responses from both HEB and the opposing party, Allyce Campbell. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied. 

Mandamus relief requires proof of a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court without an adequate remedy by appeal. A discovery error lacks an adequate remedy if it cannot be cured on appeal, severely compromises the party's claims or defenses, or if discovery is improperly denied and cannot be included in the appellate record. Overly broad discovery requests can constitute an abuse of discretion. 

The rules of civil procedure permit discovery of any unprivileged, relevant information, even if inadmissible at trial, as long as it may lead to admissible evidence. However, this is balanced against the opposing party's interests in preventing harassment or disclosure of privileged information. A responding party must object in writing, specifying the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent of non-compliance. If part of a request is deemed improper, the party must still provide discoverable information that has not been objected to.

An objection to written discovery does not exempt the responding party from complying with unchallenged requests. A party seeking to limit discovery on grounds of undue burden or harassment must demonstrate the work required to comply, as the trial court needs this evidence to make informed decisions regarding discovery limitations. Conclusory claims of undue burden are insufficient; evidence must support requests for protective orders. If the burden arises from the responding party's own discretionary choices, it cannot be attributed to the requesting party. 

In the case of Campbell v. HEB, Campbell, an 85-year-old woman, sued HEB after being injured by a motorized cart in their store. She requested all incident reports related to such carts in Texas from 2004 to November 30, 2009. HEB objected, claiming the request exceeded the scope of discovery under Texas rules and did not provide supporting evidence for its objections. Campbell's motion to compel was granted by the trial court after a non-evidentiary hearing. 

The standard of review for discovery rulings is abuse of discretion, with a focus on the trial court's adherence to relevant rules. Discovery must be relevant and reasonably tailored; overly broad requests are considered fishing expeditions. A key factor in assessing overbreadth is whether requests could be more narrowly defined.

HEB argues that the discovery order requiring the production of incident reports from all its stores is overly broad and irrelevant to Campbell's claims, which relate specifically to the store where her injury occurred. Campbell's original petition alleges that HEB's practices regarding the use of electric motorized carts were deficient, leading to injuries from operators hitting customers and displays. She claims HEB failed to monitor or train cart operators and did not implement necessary safety regulations, allowing unrestricted access to the carts. Campbell seeks to obtain information about other similar incidents to demonstrate HEB's prior knowledge of safety issues and to counter HEB's defenses attributing her injury to the cart's manufacturer or its driver.

The analysis references several cases highlighting the issue of overbroad discovery requests, illustrating that requests deemed excessively broad can qualify as "fishing expeditions." Examples include requests for extensive historical data that lack specificity or relevance to the case at hand, underscoring the principle that discovery must be appropriately tailored to ensure relevance and manageability.

HEB argues that the current discovery request is not overly broad, contrary to the findings in Dillard Department Stores and K Mart. In Dillard, the plaintiff sought extensive claims files and incident reports related to false arrest across multiple states and years, which the supreme court deemed overly broad, noting it amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition aimed at exploring potential racial discrimination claims. Similarly, in K Mart, the plaintiff requested broad crime-related information that included incidents from various locations, which the court found irrelevant to the specific allegations of negligence concerning inadequate security at a single store. In both cases, the requested discovery did not pertain directly to the specific claims made. In contrast, HEB's case involves negligence allegations tied to its nationwide policies on mechanized electronic carts, making the discovery sought relevant to the specific claims of the lawsuit, unlike the requests in Dillard and K Mart.

Accidents may be admissible in court to demonstrate whether adequate warnings were provided, as established in Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong and related cases. Additionally, complaints about accidents can show a defendant's awareness that warnings were ignored. Trial courts must weigh factors like similarity, prejudice, and confusion when determining the admissibility of such evidence. However, in this case, the focus is on the discoverability of incidents rather than their admissibility, which is broader in scope. The court noted that HEB did not argue that procedures varied across stores, failing to demonstrate that other locations were irrelevant. Citing In re Deere Co., the court emphasized that without evidence showing product lines lacked the relevant assembly, the discovery request was justified. HEB's lack of objection regarding the five-year timeframe contrasts with previous cases where lengthy periods were contested. The absence of evidence from HEB regarding the burden of compliance with the discovery request left the trial court without a basis to assess those concerns. Thus, HEB's failure to support its claims meant the court's order could not be second-guessed.

HEB did not assert compliance with any part of the disputed discovery request nor provided evidence to justify its objection based on the request being overly broad, unlike the precedent set in Dillard Department Stores, where the resisting party had partially complied and explained the breadth of the search needed. The current discovery request is limited to incidents in Texas, yet HEB did not attempt any partial compliance or present supporting evidence for its objections. Additionally, HEB did not raise issues of trade secrecy or duplicative discovery, which were critical in the In re Lowe's case, where evidence of potential trade secret invasion was provided, along with previously produced documents. The request pertains to prior incidents involving customers using motorized vehicles in HEB stores, directly related to the claims made. The trial court's conclusion that the discovery request is appropriately tailored to HEB’s policies and practices regarding the allegations is upheld, with no evidence suggesting otherwise. The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied, as relator did not demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought.