Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall
DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Mr. K.D. Skelton and Mr. Donald Golding, Relators, v. the Honorable Richard HALL, Judge, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Albert Parker sued Dillard and two of its employees alleging they subjected him to false arrest and inflicted personal injury when they detained him while shopping at a Dillard store in Houston, Texas. In January 1994, Parker filed his second request for the production of documents, including:
Copies of all complaints, including lawsuits filed against Defendant, which involve an alleged wrongful detention, arrest, civil rights violation, or any other complaint similar to the complaint of Plaintiff. If there are numerous lawsuits, you may produce the names of the court, case numbers and plaintiffs’ names, and attorneys’ names and addresses.
Dillard objected that the request was overly broad, burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence. It supported the objections with affidavit evidence that Dillard has 227 stores in twenty states, of which sixty are located in Texas and eight in Houston. Parker filed a motion to compel production but before the matter could be *492 heard, he agreed to accept production of documents concerning substantially similar claims in Harris County for two years prior to the incident. Dillard produced those documents.
In September 1994, Parker filed his third request for documents from Dillard, seeking a computer report and the incident reports and claims files for 668 named customers who had filed false arrest claims from stores across the country during the years 1984 through 1992. Dillard again objected that the request was overly broad, burdensome, and not calculated to lead to relevant evidence. Parker filed a motion to compel compliance with his second and third requests for production of documents.
The trial court ordered Dillard to produce every claims file and incident report prepared from 1985 through 1990 in every lawsuit or claim that involved allegations of false arrest, civil rights violations, and excessive use of force. It also ordered production of a computer-generated listing of these claims. Parker states in his response to Dillard’s motions in this court that he wants the discovery because he hopes to show a policy of racial discrimination. He states that he needs the discovery because he cannot include such claims in his pleadings without violating rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
As presently postured, this is a simple false arrest ease. Parker admits that he wants the document production to explore whether he can in good faith allege racial discrimination. This is the very kind of “fishing expedition” that is not allowable under rule 167 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989). Unlike depositions and interrogatories, requests for document production may not be used simply to explore.
Id.
The scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court. However, a discovery order that compels overly broad discovery “well outside the bounds of proper discovery” is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.
Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (1995). We hold that a twenty-state search for documents over a five-year period is overly broad as a matter of law. Accordingly, a majority of the Court grants relator’s motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus, and without hearing oral argument, conditionally grants the writ to direct the district court to vacate its order granting plaintiffs motion to compel. Tex.R.App.P. 122. The writ will issue only if the district court fails to act promptly in accord with this opinion.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 25 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a request for a 227 store search in twenty states over a five-year period was overly broad)
-
(providing that the scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court)
-
(“A discovery order that compels overly broad discoveiy Veil outside the bounds of proper discovery’ is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy”)
-
(A [R]equests for document production may not be used simply to explore. @)
-
(order compelling production of all incident reports nationwide for five-year period was overly broad “fishing expedition”)
-
(order overly broad because it required Dillard to produce every incident report filed between 1985 and 1990 in all 227 Dillard stores nationwide)
-
(request for every claim file or incident report involving false arrest, civil rights violations, and use of excessive force from every store in department store’s chain for last five years was overbroad)
-
(twenty-state search for documents over five-year period was overbroad as matter of law)
Cited by 196 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Miles Bivins Childers v. the State of Texas
- AKT Investments, Inc. v. T Jordan Towing, Inc.
- Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 v. the State of Texas
- Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 v. the State of Texas
- Nicholas Marteny v. Brent W. Coon and Brent W. Coon, PC D/B/A Brent Coon & Associates
- Eric Reyna v. the State of Texas
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.