The Waco Court of Appeals has conditionally granted a writ of mandamus ordering a trial court to vacate its order compelling discovery from the premises owner in a personal injury case.
In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Christopher Bentley, and Kyle Martin (10-21-00305-CV) stemmed from a 2021 accident at the Pilgrim’s Pride chicken processing plant in Waco. Pilgrim’s Pride, acting as its own general contractor, contracted with Baker Refrigeration Systems, Inc. to do refrigeration work as part of a renovation of the plant. Performing the job required Baker’s employees to work in in an area above the ceiling of a storage room. A few days into the job, the ceiling collapsed, killing one employee and seriously injuring two others. One of the employees and his wife, the Kendalls, filed suit against the company, the company employee who acted as the general contractor, and the plant manager asserting negligence. The Kendalls served requests for production of documents, to which the defendants objected and subsequently filed a motion for protection. The Kendalls then filed a motion to compel, which, after hearing, the trial court granted. The defendants filed a petition for mandamus with the court of appeals with respect to five of the Kendalls’ requests as overbroad, irrelevant, and unreasonably burdensome (the proportionality standard of TRCP 192.4).
The first two challenged requests asked for: (1) all documents reflecting all incidents, including but not limited to any near-miss reports, at the Worksite for the 60 days before and including the date of the accident; and (2) any documents reflecting any concerns or complaints regarding safety deficiencies at the plant for the past five years. Pilgrim’s argued that these requests were not limited to the area above the storage room but applied to the whole plant. Moreover, the second request sought information going back five years, which constituted an impermissible fishing expedition. Finally, Pilgrim’s asserted that it had already conceded that it was aware that the ceiling tiles were buckling prior to the accident, so any discovery relating to whether it should have known of the danger was unnecessary. The court of appeals held that the two requests were “not properly tailored with regard to the subject matter.” The Kendalls were not entitled to discovery of incidents involving other parts of the plant.
Similarly, the third challenged request sought “any Documents reflecting the job descriptions and identities of the workers at the Worksite.” The court held that this request was overbroad and could have been tailored to apply only to Pilgrim’s employees, agents, or contractors on site on the date of the accident and before it occurred. The fourth challenged request asked generally for correspondence, emails, text messages and other communications between Pilgrim’s, Baker, and other contractors working on the job regarding “safety issues.” Again, the court found that this request was “not properly tailored with respect to time or subject matter.” It applied to the whole plant and to contractors and employees who had nothing to do with accident.
The court of appeals did find, however, that the last of the five challenged requests was not overbroad, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling Pilgrim’s to respond. Here the Kendalls requested documents “pertaining to or referencing all repairs or work or modifications to any portion of the Floor including but not limited to work orders, invoices, or receipts.” Pilgrim’s argued that this request was not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence because Pilgrim’s had already stipulated that it knew the floor was buckling and had communicated that to Baker prior to the accident. But, the court of appeals ruled, the “necessary-use” exception applies “when the invitee necessarily must use the unreasonably dangerous premises, and despite the invitee’s awareness and appreciation of the dangers, the invitee is incapable of taking precautions that will adequately reduce the risk” (citations omitted). The trial court could thus have reasonably concluded that this request could lead to discovery of admissible evidence regarding Baker’s plan to reinforce the floor and the potential negligence of another contractor that had performed demolition work in the same area.
This case is another example of how the day-to-day work of the intermediate appellate courts is critical to the proper functioning of the civil justice system. We ask the courts of appeals to dispose of thousands of civil and criminal matters every year but give them meager resources with which to do it. Despite this, our ongoing analysis of opinions in matters of special interest to TCJL members generally reflects that the appellate courts are functioning well. Of course, there are some outlying decisions from our particular standpoint, but nothing that demonstrates systemic neglect of the work or ideologically-based decision-making. It appears to us that a lot of the growing pains that occurred after the substantial turn-over in the appellate judiciary in 2018 have worked themselves out for the most part. That is good news for everybody.
