- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K MART CORP. v. SANDERSON
Factual and Procedural Background
Stacey Thompson filed a lawsuit against K Mart Corporation, a Michigan corporation, and Weingarten Realty Management Company, a Texas corporation, seeking actual and punitive damages not exceeding $30 million. The suit arose from Thompson's abduction and rape in a K Mart store parking lot in Lufkin, Texas. Although the incident occurred in Angelina County, Thompson filed the lawsuit in Jefferson County. Thompson alleged negligence and gross negligence by the defendants in failing to provide adequate security. During discovery, Thompson requested broad document production and interrogatories related to criminal conduct on K Mart properties. K Mart objected to the requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as improperly requiring production of work product. The district court overruled K Mart’s objections and compelled production and responses. K Mart sought mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of Texas, challenging the district court’s discovery orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by compelling K Mart to produce documents that included work product, without a showing that such production was justified.
- Whether Thompson’s requests for production and interrogatories were overly broad and unduly burdensome, exceeding the permissible scope of discovery under Texas procedural rules.
- Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to correct an alleged abuse of discretion in discovery orders involving excessively broad discovery requests.
Arguments of the Parties
Relators' (K Mart) Arguments
- Thompson’s document requests and interrogatories are overly broad and unduly burdensome, effectively requiring production of the entire file and evidence from every known source.
- The requests improperly include work product, which should not be subject to discovery absent a proper showing.
- The discovery requests resemble a "fishing expedition," going beyond what is permissible under Texas discovery rules.
- Precedent such as Loftin v. Martin supports limiting overly broad discovery requests and requiring specificity in production requests.
Respondent's (Thompson) Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989) | Requests for production must be specific and not vague or overly broad; discovery should not be used as a fishing expedition. | The court distinguished Thompson’s request from Loftin’s but emphasized that discovery requests must be reasonably specific; work product protection applies. |
| Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995) | Discovery requests that are excessively broad and outside the bounds of proper discovery constitute an abuse of discretion. | The court held that certain interrogatories and document requests in the present case were similarly overly broad and thus an abuse of discretion. |
| Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995) | Discovery orders compelling overly broad discovery are an abuse of discretion and mandamus is the proper remedy. | The court applied this precedent to find Thompson’s interrogatories 15 and 16 overly broad as a matter of law. |
| General Motors Corp. v. Lawrence, 651 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. 1983) | Mandamus is an appropriate remedy when a trial court abuses discretion in discovery matters and no adequate appellate remedy exists. | Supported the court’s decision to grant mandamus relief to K Mart. |
| Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) | Mandamus relief is appropriate to correct clear abuses of discretion by trial courts. | Reinforced the court’s authority to grant mandamus relief in this discovery dispute. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the scope and specificity of Thompson’s discovery requests in light of Texas discovery rules and relevant precedents. It found that the district court erred by compelling production of work product documents without a proper basis, as the record contained no justification for such an order. The court distinguished Thompson’s general document requests from those deemed overly broad in Loftin, noting that because the incident was isolated, a reasonable person could identify responsive documents. However, the court held that the interrogatories concerning extensive criminal conduct over many years and locations were excessively broad and unrelated to the claims at issue, thus constituting an abuse of discretion. The court rejected the notion that any discovery device may be used as a "fishing expedition," emphasizing that the burden on K Mart was substantial and unwarranted. Applying the reasoning from Dillard and Texaco, the court concluded that the district court’s order compelling answers to the interrogatories and production of related documents exceeded permissible discovery limits. Because K Mart had no adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus relief was warranted.
Holding and Implications
The court GRANTED K Mart’s petition for writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its September 13, 1995 order compelling discovery.
The direct effect of this decision is to limit the scope of discovery in this case, protecting K Mart from having to produce work product and respond to excessively broad interrogatories and document requests. The ruling reinforces established precedents restricting discovery to reasonable bounds and specificity, and clarifies that mandamus is an appropriate remedy for discovery abuses. No new legal precedent was established; the opinion applies and reiterates existing Texas discovery law principles.
PER CURIAM.
Much like Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), and Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), this original mandamus proceeding involves discovery that is clearly excessively broad.
Stacey Thompson sued K Mart, a Michigan corporation, to recover actual and punitive damages not exceeding $30 million for injuries she received when she was abducted from a K Mart store parking lot in Lufkin and raped. Thompson also sued Weingarten Realty Management Company, a Texas corporation. Thompson alleged that these defendants (to whom we refer collectively as K Mart) and others were negligent and grossly negligent in failing to make adequate provisions for her safety. Although the incident occurred in Angelina County, where Thompson resides, Thompson filed suit in Jefferson County.
Thompson requested K Mart to produce all documents "which relate to, touch or concern the allegations of this lawsuit", all documents "reflecting the incident made the basis of this lawsuit", and any document "which is not work product which relates in any way to this incident". K Mart objected to these requests on the grounds that they would require production of work product and are "overly broad, unduly burdensome and would require [K Mart] to turn over its entire file and gather evidence from every known source so as to try the entire case in this discovery response." The district court overruled K Mart's objections and ordered production of the documents.
One of Thompson's three requests excludes work product; the other two do not. The order compelling production does not mention work product. Since the record does not reflect any basis for compelling K Mart to produce work product, the district court erred in doing so.
K Mart argues that Thompson's requests were improper under our decision in Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989), which held:
Loftin has requested all evidence that supports Lumbermens' allegations. The request does not identify any particular class or type of documents but it is merely a request that Loftin be allowed to generally peruse all evidence Lumbermens might have. We hold that such request was vague, ambiguous, and overbroad and that the trial court was within its sound discretion in sustaining Lumbermens' objection. No one seeks to deny Loftin's right to see evidence against him, but he must formulate his request for production with a certain degree of specificity to allow Lumbermens to comply.
We think the request in the present case is distinguishable from the one in Loftin. Thompson requested all documents relating to the incident in which she was injured, not all documents which support K mart's position or which relate to the claims and defenses in the cause of action. Because the incident was an isolated occurrence, we think a reasonable person would understand from the request what documents fit the description. It would be better, of course, to be more specific. We do not hold that a request as broad as Thompson's is proper in every circumstance. Here, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing Thompson's requests, except for requiring production of work product.
Thompson also served the three following interrogatories on K Mart:
10. Please describe by date and offense type any criminal conduct that occurred in the K Mart store or parking lot in the shopping center in question during the last seven (7) years.
15. Please list all criminal activities at all property owned, leased or managed by both K Mart Corporation or Weingarten Realty Management Company in the State of Texas during the last seven years that relate in any way to the alleged failure to provide adequate security allegedly resulting in any sort of physical injury to any person.
16. Have there been other incidents at K Mart Stores owned by Weingarten Realty Management Company nationwide in which a person was abducted from the premises and raped? If so, please state the date and location of each such incident that occurred within the last ten years.
Thompson also requested production (request 19) of all documents related to interrogatory 15. K Mart objected to the interrogatories and request as being overly broad and burdensome. The district court overruled K Mart's objections.
In Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, plaintiffs claimed damages for exposure to toxic chemicals. At plaintiffs' request, the district court ordered production of all documents written by Texaco's safety director concerning "safety, toxicology, and industrial hygiene, epidemiology, fire protection and training." 898 S.W.2d at 814. We granted mandamus relief, holding the request to be so excessively broad as to be "well outside the bounds of proper discovery." Id. at 815. The same may be said of Thompson's interrogatory 10. It would require K Mart to give the date of every shoplifting offense for the past seven years, though shoplifting on K Mart's premises has no apparent connection to Thompson's injury or cause of action.
In Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall, plaintiff sued Dillard for false arrest. At plaintiff's request, 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" for each of its 227 stores located in twenty states. 909 S.W.2d at 491-492. We granted mandamus relief, holding that the requested discovery was "overly broad as a matter of law." Id. at 492. Thompson's interrogatories 15 and 16 are likewise overly broad. The likelihood that criminal conduct on the parking lot of a K Mart store or other property owned by Weingarten in El Paso or Amarillo as long ago as 1989, or outside Texas as long ago as 1986, will have even a minuscule bearing on this case is far too small to justify discovery.
A reference in Loftin suggests that interrogatories and depositions may properly be used for a fishing expedition when a request for production of documents cannot. Loftin, 776 S.W.2d at 148 ("Unlike interrogatories and depositions, Rule 167 is not a fishing rule."). We reject the notion that any discovery device can be used to "fish". The burden of answering interrogatories like those in this case is hardly less to K Mart than producing documents containing the same information. The district court's order requiring K Mart to answer interrogatories 10, 15 and 16, and to produce documents related to interrogatory 15 called for in request 19, exceeded the bounds of discovery permitted by the rules of procedure and was a clear abuse of discretion. K Mart has no adequate remedy by appeal and is therefore entitled to relief by mandamus. Dillard, 909 S.W.2d at 492 ("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, 898 S.W.2d at 815 ("The trial court's ruling requiring production beyond that permitted by the rules of procedure was a clear abuse of discretion. Defendants have no adequate remedy by appeal."). See General Motors Corp. v. Lawrence, 651 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. 1983); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992).
Accordingly, the Court grants K Mart's motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and, without hearing argument, grants K Mart's petition and directs the district court to vacate its order dated September 13, 1995. The writ will not issue unless the district court fails to comply promptly. Further proceedings should be consistent with this opinion.
ABBOTT, J., did not participate in the decision.
Alert