Opinion · Texas Supreme Court
Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall
909 S.W.2d 491
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1995-10-27
- Topic
- litigation
holding that a request for a 227 store search in twenty states over a five-year period was overly broad | holding that request for Dillard to perform a search for documents covering a five-year time period and twenty states was overly broad as a matter of law | providing that the scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court | providing that the scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court | stating that a request requiring a 227-store search in twenty states for documents over a five-year period was overly broad | stating that a request requiring a 227-store search in twenty states for documents over a five-year period was overly broad | stating that a 227 store search in twenty states for documents over a five-year period was overly broad | stating that a 227 store search in twenty states for documents 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” | “The scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court.” | “[A] discovery order that compels overly broad discovery “well outside the bounds of proper discovery1 is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.” | order compelling production of all incident reports nationwide for five-year period was overly broad “fishing expedition” | order requiring twenty state search for documents over five year period overly broad as matter of law | order overly broad because it required Dillard to produce every incident report filed between 1985 and 1990 in all 227 Dillard stores nationwide | A [R]equests for document production may not be used simply to explore. @ | "[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." | request for documents of all complaints involving allegations similar to that of plaintiff from defendant’s businesses located in twenty states over a five-year period held overly broad as a matter of law | 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 | overbroad requests for every incident between 1985 and 1990 in 227 stores nationwide | twenty-state search for documents over five-year period was overbroad as matter of law | in case of false arrest at Houston department store, request for every claims file or incident report from every store in the company’s chain involving false arrest, civil rights violations, or use of excessive force held overbroad | in case of false arrest at a Houston department store, request for every claims file or incident report from every store in the company‘s chain involving false arrest, civil rights violations, and use of excessive force held overbroad | in case of false arrest at a Houston department store, request for every claims file or incident report from every store in the company's chain involving false arrest, civil rights violations, and use of excessive force held overbroad | scope of discovery is within the trial court’s discretion
Citator
- Cited by
- 92 opinions
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.