K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson
937 S.W.2d 429 (1997)
Rule of Law:
Discovery requests must be reasonably tailored in time, geographic scope, and subject matter to the specific claims at issue. Requests that seek information about all criminal incidents at all of a company's properties nationwide, or that fail to exclude privileged information like work product, are impermissibly overbroad.
Facts:
- Stacey Thompson was abducted from the parking lot of a K Mart store in Lufkin, Texas.
- After being abducted, Thompson was raped.
- The K Mart store and its parking lot were owned, leased, or managed by K Mart Corporation and/or Weingarten Realty Management Company.
- Thompson alleged that K Mart and Weingarten failed to provide adequate security in the parking lot, which led to her injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Stacey Thompson filed suit against K Mart Corporation and Weingarten Realty Management Company in a Jefferson County district court (trial court) for negligence and gross negligence.
- During discovery, Thompson served K Mart with broad requests for production and interrogatories, seeking information on crimes at the Lufkin store, all Texas properties, and nationwide.
- K Mart objected to the requests, arguing they were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and sought privileged work product.
- The district court overruled K Mart's objections and issued an order compelling K Mart to respond to the discovery requests.
- K Mart filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Texas, asking it to direct the district court to vacate its discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a discovery order compelling a defendant to produce information about every criminal act at all its properties statewide and nationwide, and to produce all documents related to the incident without regard to privilege, constitute an abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A discovery order that compels a party to respond to requests that are not reasonably tailored in time, geography, and subject matter is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus relief is appropriate. The court found that the interrogatories seeking information about all criminal conduct at the specific store (including irrelevant crimes like shoplifting) and all criminal incidents at all K Mart properties in Texas and nationwide were overly broad. Such requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as a crime in El Paso is unlikely to have any bearing on the foreseeability of a crime in Lufkin. The court also held that the trial court erred by ordering the production of documents without excluding privileged work product. While a request for all documents related to the specific incident was deemed acceptable because it was an isolated event, the broader interrogatories constituted an impermissible 'fishing expedition'.
Analysis:
This per curiam opinion reinforces the Texas Supreme Court's role in policing discovery abuses through the remedy of mandamus. It solidifies the principle that discovery requests cannot be a boundless 'fishing expedition' but must be reasonably tailored to the specific facts of the case. The decision serves as a significant precedent for defendants challenging geographically and thematically overbroad discovery, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a logical connection between the information sought and the claims at issue. By explicitly rejecting the idea that any discovery tool can be used to 'fish,' the court applied a consistent standard of reasonableness across all forms of discovery.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson (1997)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"