In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.

IN RE H.E.B. GROCERY COMPANY, L.P.

NUMBER 13-14-00023-CV

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Delivered and filed: February 18, 2014

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza¹

On January 13, 2014, relator, H.E.B. Grocery Company, L.P. ("H.E.B."), filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay contending that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering relator to produce two incident reports in the underlying premises liability lawsuit. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

I. BACKGROUND

Daniel Rodriguez tripped and fell in the parking lot of the H.E.B. store located at 2155 Paredes Line Road in Brownsville, Texas. According to H.E.B.'s incident report,Rodriguez, who was a customer at the store, was putting trash in one of the trash cans in the parking lot when he tripped on the metal plate of a cart corral. Rodriguez fell against the trash can and cut his face. Rodriguez was taken by ambulance to a local hospital.

Rodriguez thereafter brought suit against H.E.B. for negligence and breach of ordinary care. According to Rodriguez's original petition, H.E.B. was negligent because it: failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and free of hazards; failed to correct an unreasonably dangerous condition; failed to warn invitees of the dangerous condition; failed to properly inspect the premises to discover the unreasonably dangerous condition; failed to properly train its employees regarding the appropriate manner in which to make the premises reasonably safe; failed to implement policies, rules, or procedures to make its premises reasonably safe; and failed to enforce proper policies, rules, or procedures to make its premises reasonably safe. Rodriguez also alleged that H.E.B. breached its duty of ordinary care regarding maintenance and the supervision of personnel and in failing to implement adequate policies, procedures, or safeguards to ensure that its premises were free of unreasonably dangerous conditions.

The parties thereafter engaged in discovery. This original proceeding concerns H.E.B.'s responses to interrogatory number 9 and request for production number 11. Interrogatory number 9 and H.E.B.'s response to this interrogatory are as follows:

9. Describe each incident in which you have been sued, and/or had a claim brought against you whereby a person claimed that a condition on your premises caused an accident or injury. This interrogatory is limited to the last five (5) years and to [H.E.B.'s] premises in Brownsville, Texas. For each such incident, please state:

a. The date of the incident;

b. The parties involved;

c. The style and case number of each filed case, if any;d. The claim number of each non-filed case; and

e. A brief description of the incident and claimed injuries.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad and burdensome. Defendant further objects on the basis of relevance. In addition, Defendant objects on the basis that disclosure of the information would violate the individual's privacy rights and expectation of privacy.

Request for production number 11 and H.E.B.'s response thereto provide:

11. Please provide all accident and/or incident reports regarding slip and falls, trips and falls or other incidents, including, but not limited to, accidents and/or incidents of your employees which have occurred on [H.E.B.'s] premises. This request is limited to five (5) years before the incident made the basis of this suit and to [H.E.B.'s] premises in Brownsville, Texas.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad and burdensome. Defendant further objects on the basis of relevance. In addition, Defendant objects on the basis that disclosure of the information would violate the individuals' privacy rights and expectation of privacy.

Rodriguez filed a second motion to compel regarding these two discovery requests and others on August 26, 2013. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to compel on October 2, 2013, but the transcript of that hearing is not part of the record before this Court. The trial court granted the second motion to compel and ordered, in relevant part, that interrogatory number 9 and request for production number 11 were limited to "3 years for trip and fall incidents in the parking lot for the H.E.B. in question."

On November 1, 2013, relator filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's order on the motion to compel and requested an in camera inspection. According to the motion, H.E.B.'s search for information and documents responsive to interrogatory number 9 and request for production number 11 resulted in the location of two other incident reports besides the one at issue in this lawsuit. H.E.B. requested that the trial court reconsiderits order to produce these two incident reports on grounds that the "two other trip and fall accidents [were] not related to shopping cart corrals" and "contained private and confidential information." The incident reports at issue are prepared by H.E.B. employees and consist of one-page computer-generated printouts which contain the customers' names, addresses, day and evening phone numbers, dates of birth, a brief description of the incident, and a brief summary of the injuries sustained.

On January 8, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on H.E.B.'s motion. On January 9, 2014, the trial court issued an order granting H.E.B.'s motion to reconsider and for an in-camera inspection. That same day, the trial court held an in-camera inspection of the two incident reports and, by separate order issued that same day, ordered H.E.B. to produce them.

This original proceeding ensued. By three issues, H.E.B. contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the production of incident reports for a three-year period before the date of the accident at issue in this case for accidents "that did not occur pursuant to the same instrumentality or related in some special way to the accident in question"; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the production of non-relevant incident reports containing individuals' private information; and (3) Rodriguez failed to meet his burden of showing why the production of incident reports containing individuals' private information was material, relevant, and necessary. By its motion to stay, H.E.B. sought to stay all trial court proceedings, including discovery, depositions, and hearings, pending resolution of this cause. This Court granted the motion to stay, in part, and ordered the trial court's orders of January 9, 2014 to be stayed, but denied the motion insofar as it sought to stay all other trial court proceedings. This Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from Rodriguez.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus is appropriate when the relator demonstrates that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Because this balance depends heavily on circumstances, it must be guided by the analysis of principles rather than the application of simple rules that treat cases as categories. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. We also consider whether mandamus will "allow the appellate courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments." Id. Finally, we consider whether mandamus will spare the litigants and the public "the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings." Id.

The scope of discovery is generally within the trial court's discretion. In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). Parties may seek discovery "regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action . . . ." TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a). Information is relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the information. TEX. R. EVID. 401. However, a party's discovery requests must show a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid in the resolution of the dispute. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152. Therefore, discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Mandamus relief is available when the trial court compels production beyond the permissible bounds of discovery. In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322 (Tex. 2...