Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (1992)
Rule of Law:
A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a trial court's discovery order only when there is a clear abuse of discretion and the party has no other adequate remedy by appeal. An appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay, but only when a party's substantial rights are lost because an appeal cannot cure the error.
Facts:
- Catherine Johanna Walker was born in January 1983 and sustained brain damage.
- Dr. Paul Crider served as the obstetrician, and Nurse Iris Jean White attended the delivery at St. Paul Hospital.
- Following the birth, Nurse White gave a tape-recorded statement to an adjuster for Aetna, St. Paul Hospital's insurer.
- The defendants retained Dr. Larry Gilstrap, a faculty member at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas ('the Center'), as an expert witness.
- Dr. Gilstrap testified in a deposition that he was unaware of any policy at the Center that restricted faculty members from testifying for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases.
- In an unrelated lawsuit, another faculty member from the Center, Dr. Alvin L. Brekken, testified that the department did have an official written policy requiring faculty to obtain authorization before testifying for a plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles F. and Mary Jeanette Walker sued Dr. Paul Crider, St. Paul Hospital, and Nurse Iris Jean White in state trial court for medical malpractice.
- During pre-trial discovery, the Walkers filed a motion to compel production of documents from St. Paul Hospital and sought to depose a representative of a non-party, the University of Texas Health Science Center.
- A special master was appointed, and based on the master's findings, the trial court entered orders that largely denied the discovery sought by the Walkers.
- The Walkers filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the intermediate court of appeals, which denied relief.
- The Walkers then sought mandamus relief by filing a petition in the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court.
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 trial court's erroneous denial of a discovery request for impeachment evidence on a non-party expert witness constitute a clear abuse of discretion for which the party has no adequate remedy by appeal, thereby warranting mandamus relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Chief Justice
No. While a trial court's clear failure to correctly analyze or apply the law constitutes a clear abuse of discretion, mandamus relief is inappropriate if the party has an adequate remedy by appeal. The court clarified that an appeal is an adequate remedy unless: (1) the appellate court cannot cure the error, such as when privileged information is erroneously disclosed; (2) the error vitiates or severely compromises a party's ability to present a viable claim or defense; or (3) the denied discovery cannot be made part of the appellate record. Here, the denial of discovery of impeachment evidence against a non-party expert, while based on an erroneous legal interpretation, does not meet this high standard. The information is not privileged, its denial does not prevent the Walkers from presenting their underlying malpractice claim, and the documents can be preserved for review in a regular appeal after final judgment. The court expressly disapproved of prior cases that suggested a more lenient standard where an appeal might be more costly or delayed.
Dissenting - Doggett, Justice
Yes. The trial court's clear abuse of discretion warrants mandamus because the remedy by appeal is functionally non-existent for discovery errors. The majority's decision creates a double standard where mandamus is readily available to parties resisting discovery (e.g., to protect privilege) but is denied to parties seeking discovery, thus favoring powerful litigants who control information. Due to the high bar of the harmless error rule, it is nearly impossible for a party to obtain a reversal on appeal based on a wrongful denial of discovery. This ruling effectively overturns years of sound precedent and returns Texas discovery practice to a 'dark age' where trial court abuses in denying discovery go uncorrected.
Dissenting - Gammage, Justice
Yes. Mandamus is appropriate because the trial court’s denial of discovery has a material and adverse effect on the Walkers' ability to present their case. In a medical malpractice claim, the credibility of expert witnesses is often determinative. Denying the Walkers information that could be used to impeach a key expert witness substantially harms their case, making the remedy by appeal inadequate. Mandamus relief should be available to correct any trial court error that materially affects a party's rights, regardless of whether discovery was granted or denied.
Concurring - Gonzalez, Justice
No. Mandamus is inappropriate, but for a different reason than the majority states; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the first place. The trial court correctly applied the precedent from Russell v. Young, which properly holds that discovery from a non-party sought solely for impeachment purposes is not permitted. The majority strains to distinguish Russell and, in doing so, will invite harassment of non-party witnesses and inundate trial courts with hearings on collateral issues. However, the concurrence agrees with the majority's clarification of the high standards for mandamus, which is necessary to stem an increasing number of mandamus filings.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly constricted the availability of mandamus relief for trial court discovery orders in Texas. By heightening the standard for what constitutes an 'inadequate remedy by appeal,' the Court effectively determined that most discovery errors, particularly denials of discovery, must wait for a post-judgment appeal. This ruling curtails interlocutory appeals for routine discovery disputes, vesting more finality in trial court rulings. The decision establishes a clear, albeit asymmetrical, framework where errors compelling disclosure of privileged information are more likely to receive immediate review than errors denying discovery of non-privileged information.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Walker v. Packer (1992)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"