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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

this Court and the United States Supreme Court over the past couple of decades hav e significantly restricted the availability of punitive damages, which suggests Lansford ought to be revisited, and revised, by this Court . While the trend in other jurisdictions is to withhold discovery of net wort h information until a prima facie showing that a viable issue exists for awarding punitive damages, or at least some demonstrated factual basis, this Court held in Lunsford that discovery of net worth information may be appropriate without any showing of a viabl e issue, subjecting a defendant to invasion of personal privacy rights upon little more tha n artful pleading . The Legislature has, since the Court has allowed such discovery , amended Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to provide a stric t statutory scheme designed to comport with due process in imposition of exemplary damages against defendants . For example, not only must an award of exemplary damages be supported by clear and convincing evidence of gross negligence, but the predicate liability, as well as gross negligence liability, must be supported by unanimou s jury findings. And, a defendant may select a bifurcated process, whereby the net wort h information relevant and admissible for consideration by the jury is not presented to th e jury until after it has unanimously made the proper predicate liability findings . Respectfully, this Court should, in this case, recognize that this statutory exemplar y damages scheme requires more than artful pleading to sustain a violation of privacy an d due process rights through broad pretrial discovery into a defendant's net worth-a n issue relevant only to the determination of the amount of punitive damages . 5
Texas courts have made clear that more than bare allegations of gross negligenc e are required before net worth discovery can proceed-that sufficient underlying facts must be alleged to support such legal theories. No adequate remedy exists to cure Respondent's clear abuse of discretion because Relators' due process rights, privacy interests and confidential information will have already been sacrificed by the time an appeal can be taken. Allowing Respondent's orders (even as modified by the court o f appeals) to stand creates dangerous, alarming precedent because any claimant could brin g suit with artful pleading of "gross negligence," and would be entitled not only to broa d documentary evidence, but also to cross-examination in deposition and video depositio n which may be made part of the public record. No defendant is exempt . This Court should reject this result and hold that more is required to sustain orders for pretrial ne t worth discovery . Accordingly, this Court should grant Relators' petition for writ o f mandamus and vacate the net worth discovery orders of Respondent and the court o f appeals . VII . ARGUMENT A . Standards for Mandamus Relief An appellate court can provide relief by writ of mandamus if the relato r establishes (I) a clear abuse of discretion' by the respondent, and (2) the lack of an 'A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear an d prejudicial error of law. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S .W.2d 833, 839 (Tex . 1982) (orig. proceeding) ; Copeland v. Ayers, 138 S.W.3d 652, 654 (Tex . App.-Dallas 2004, pet . denied) ; see also Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 70 0 S .W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceedin g). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is o r applying the law to the facts . In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W .3d at 135 . As a result, this Court's review of th e legal principles controlling the Respondent's ruling is not deferential to that ruling . See Walker, 827 S .W.2d at 840 . A clear failure by Respondent to properly analyze or apply the law will constitute an abuse of discretion for whic h mandamus relief will lie . See Id. In addition, under certain circumstances, a trial court's action can constitute a n abuse of discretion even though it is consistent with existing jurisprudence, but where the action conflicts with wha t 6
Page 1 and 2: IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY RELIEF REQUESTE
Page 3 and 4: Barbara A . Hilburn Divya R . Chund
Page 5 and 6: 3. Texas Legislature's Dramatic Res
Page 7 and 8: Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck,
Page 9 and 10: NO . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXA S
Page 11 and 12: I . STATEMENT OFTHECASE Nature of t
Page 13 and 14: This Court also has jurisdiction ov
Page 15 and 16: of Intention to Take Deposition on
Page 17 and 18: C . Petition for Writ of Mandamus t
Page 19: introduce evidence of a defendant's
Page 23 and 24: lender in the past two years and pr
Page 25 and 26: strict statutory scheme, and requir
Page 27 and 28: jury's verdict be unanimous , as to
Page 29 and 30: (1 996). Under either, or under a m
Page 31 and 32: Respectfully submitted , COOPER & S
Page 34 and 35: NO . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXA S
Page 37 and 38: STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALL
Page 40 and 41: Sep.24 . 1OvB' 10 :13AM 2 322 P. 3/
Page 43 and 44: $~.. 24. gi n 10 : 14At 2 5 2 F. 6/
Page 46 and 47: 235095 , PROBATE COURT 42 pl~ - Cau
Page 49 and 50: 09/05/2e08 15:33 7132271121 THE KLE
Page 51 and 52: 09/05/2008 15 : 33 7132271121 THE K
Page 53 and 54: 09/05/2608 15 :33 7132271121 THE KL
Page 55 and 56: 03/05/2@@B 15 :33 7132271121 IHE KL
Page 57 and 58: 09/05/2008 15 :33 7132271121 THE KL
Page 59 and 60: 05/05/2008 15 :33 7132271121 THE KL
Page 61 and 62: Lib/ 2J d (laaari1,41 IHE KLEIN LAW
Page 63: l='i 11b/2(IE;3m 1b : ;3 :3 /13'22/
Page 66 and 67: I . DISCOVERY CONTROL PLA N Pursuan
Page 68 and 69: Defendants Gunn and Jacobs . The bu
Page 70 and 71:
1. Failing to provide appropriate a
Page 72 and 73:
Each of the above acts and/or omiss
Page 74 and 75:
An act or omission by Debra C . Gun
Page 76 and 77:
B. Defendant Debra Clark Gunn, M.D.
Page 78 and 79:
the course and scope of their emplo
Page 80 and 81:
XII . CONDITIONS PRECEDEN T Plainti
Page 82:
CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE I hereby cert
Page 85 and 86:
I Real parties in interest, Andre M
Page 87 and 88:
In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S .W.3
Page 89 and 90:
law, a party seeking discovery of n
Page 91 and 92:
Id. The McCoys allege Dr. Jacobs an
Page 93 and 94:
S .W.3d at 897 (quoting Roark v. Al
Page 95 and 96:
In re CSX Corp., 124 S .W.3d at 153
Page 97 and 98:
harrassment ." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc
Page 99 and 100:
and the McCoys have not pleaded suf
Page 101 and 102:
The specific controversy over net-w
Page 103 and 104:
In 1987, the Texas Legislature bega
Page 105 and 106:
of litigants to seek and recover ex
Page 107 and 108:
This sort of invasive discovery gen
Page 109 and 110:
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT IN RE MARIA
Page 111 and 112:
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8112, ''' Page
Page 113 and 114:
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8112 , Page 5
Page 115 and 116:
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8112, Page 7 a
Page 117 and 118:
2009 Tex, App . LEXIS 8112, * Page
Page 119 and 120:
2009 Tex . App. LEXIS 8112, * Page
Page 121 and 122:
2009 Tex. App . LEX1S 8112, '' Page
Page 123 and 124:
2009 Tex . App. LEXIS 8112, * Page
Page 125 and 126:
2009 Tex, App. LEXIS 8112 , Page 1
Page 128 and 129:
JURISDICTIONS REQUIRINGMORETHANMERE
Page 130 and 131:
CASE OR STATUTE REQUIREMENT 102(1)(
Page 133 and 134:
CHRONOLOGYOFLEGISLATURE'SANDCOURT'S
Page 135:
DATE CASE NAME OR STATUTE CHANG E s
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?