From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dillard Dept. Stores Inc. v. Hall

Supreme Court of Texas
Oct 27, 1995
909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995)

Summary

holding request requiring "a twenty-state search for documents over a five-year period is overly broad as a matter of law"

Summary of this case from In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC

Opinion

No. 95-0548.

July 7, 1995. Rehearing Overruled October 27, 1995.

Brock C. Akers, Houston, Evelyn T. Ailts, Houston and Kevin G. Corcoran, Houston, for relators.

Lester R. Buzbee, III, Conroe, for respondent.


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 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 case. 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 plaintiff's 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.


Summaries of

Dillard Dept. Stores Inc. v. Hall

Supreme Court of Texas
Oct 27, 1995
909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995)

holding request requiring "a twenty-state search for documents over a five-year period is overly broad as a matter of law"

Summary of this case from In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC

holding that a request for every false imprisonment case in the last five years throughout twenty states was overbroad

Summary of this case from In re C & J Energy Servs.

holding that discovery order compelling overly broad discovery outside the bounds of proper discovery is an abuse of discretion (citing Texaco, 898 S.W.2d at 815)

Summary of this case from In re Tex. Christian Univ.

holding that a request for a 227 store search in twenty states over a five-year period was overly broad

Summary of this case from In re Heb Grocery Co.

holding a twenty-state search for documents over a five-year period to attempt to identify racial discrimination in false arrests by store was overly broad

Summary of this case from In re Oncor Ele. Deli

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

Summary of this case from In re BNSF Railway

finding a discovery order overbroad because it compelled production of incident reports in all 227 of the defendant's department stores, though the plaintiff was injured in only one

Summary of this case from In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co.

In Dillard, we held the trial court's order was overly broad, because it required Dillard to produce every incident report filed between 1985 and 1990 in all 227 Dillard stores nationwide.

Summary of this case from In re CSX Corp.

requiring Dillards to produce every incident report of false arrest, excessive force, and civil rights violations filed between 1985 and 1990 in all 227 Dillard stores nationwide

Summary of this case from In re Walmart, Inc.

seeking all company records on claims alleging false arrest, civil rights violation, or excessive force in hope of finding evidence to support race discrimination claim not proper discovery

Summary of this case from In re Tex. Christian Univ.

stating that a request requiring a 227-store search in twenty states for documents over a five-year period was overly broad

Summary of this case from In re Waste Mgmt. of Tx.

stating that a 227 store search in twenty states for documents over a five-year period was overly broad

Summary of this case from IN RE HEB GROCERY CO.

providing that the scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court

Summary of this case from In re Williams

In Dillard, we held the trial court's order was overly broad, because it required Dillard to produce every incident report filed between 1985 and 1990 in all 227 Dillard stores nation-wide.

Summary of this case from In re Nolle

providing that the scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court

Summary of this case from In re Patel

In Dillard Dep't Stores v. Hall, the Texas Supreme Court held that a request for Dillards to perform a 20-state search for documents over a five-year period was overly broad as a matter of law. 909 S.W.2d at 492.

Summary of this case from IN RE CNA HOLDINGS, INC.

stating that a 227 store search in twenty states for documents over a five-year period is overly broad as a matter of law

Summary of this case from Fethkenher v. Kroger Co.

In Dillard, the Court held that a "twenty-state search for documents over a five-year period is overly broad as a matter of law."

Summary of this case from Tjernagel v. Roberts
Case details for

Dillard Dept. Stores Inc. v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Mr. K.D. Skelton and Mr. Donald Golding…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Oct 27, 1995

Citations

909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995)

Citing Cases

In re Stern

Id. Determinations regarding the scope of discovery are largely within the trial court's discretion. In re…

In re Stern

Determinations regarding the scope of discovery are largely within the trial court's discretion. In re…