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
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