22.02.2014 Views

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

. Whether Real Parties should be required to make a prima facie showing, or<br />

at a minimum, a demonstrated factual basis, <strong>for</strong> punitive liability be<strong>for</strong> e<br />

having access to net worth discovery .<br />

c. Whether, as suggested by Justice Sullivan in his concurrence below, thi s<br />

<strong>Court</strong>'s decision in Luns<strong>for</strong>d v. Morris, 746 S .W.2d 471, 473 (Tex . 1988 )<br />

should be revisited and revised to comport with the Legislature's significant<br />

restrictions over the past two decades on the availability and recovery <strong>of</strong><br />

punitive damages in <strong>Texas</strong> .<br />

2. Whether, even under the current state <strong>of</strong> <strong>Texas</strong> law, the court <strong>of</strong> appeals '<br />

holdings in this case properly limit the scope <strong>of</strong> net worth discovery, and<br />

whether those limitations adequately protect Relators from invasive and<br />

intrusive net worth discovery, from invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy rights, and preserv e<br />

their due process rights .<br />

3. Whether Relators have an adequate remedy by appeal, where their rights o f<br />

privacy and due process have not been protected by Respondent or th e<br />

court <strong>of</strong> appeals through the orders <strong>for</strong> overly broad, invasive, and intrusiv e<br />

net worth discovery .<br />

IV .<br />

RECORD AND APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF PETITIO N<br />

Relators have filed separately their Record in Support <strong>of</strong> <strong>Petition</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Writ</strong> o f<br />

<strong>Mandamus</strong>, pursuant to Rule 52 .7 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Texas</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Appellate Procedure, and hav e<br />

included the following documents in the Appendix attached hereto, pursuant to Rule<br />

52 .3(j) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Texas</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Appellate Procedure :<br />

Tab A : Affidavit <strong>of</strong> Diana L. Faust (November 10, 2009 )<br />

Tab B : Order Regarding Defendants Mark Jacobs, M .D.'s, Defendant<br />

Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P .A .'s, and Debra Clark<br />

Gunn, M .D .'s Special Exceptions to Plaintiffs' Third Amended<br />

<strong>Petition</strong>, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, and<br />

Defendants Mark Jacobs, 'A .D.'s, Debra Clark Gunn, M .D.'s and<br />

Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P .A .'s Motion <strong>for</strong><br />

Protection Concerning Net Worth Discovery (January 23, 2009 )<br />

Tab C :<br />

Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Deposition o f<br />

Mark Jacobs, M.D., with Subpoena Duces Tecum, Defendant Mar k<br />

A. Jacobs, M .D .'s Motion <strong>for</strong> . Protective Order, Motions <strong>for</strong><br />

Sanctions, and Motion to Quash and Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!