In re American Optical Corp.

272 Citing cases

  1. In re Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

    543 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    In re Graco Children’s Prods., Inc. , 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Am. Optical , 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

  2. In re Waste Mgmt. of Tx.

    No. 13-11-00197-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Stated otherwise, mandamus relief is proper when a trial court signs an order compelling discovery that is outside the proper bounds of discovery. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).

  3. In re CSX Corp.

    124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003)   Cited 536 times
    Holding that a responding party lacks an adequate remedy by appeal from an order compelling discovery of "patently irrelevant or duplicative [information]" because "the order imposes a burden on the [responding] party far out of proportion to any benefit that may obtain to the requesting party"

    However, the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits. In re American Optical, 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). The trial court abuses its discretion by ordering discovery that exceeds that permitted by the rules of procedure.

  4. In re American Power Conversion Corp.

    No. 04-12-00140-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 5, 2012)

    In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322-23 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); see In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (concluding that no adequate appellate remedy existed where the trial court ordered overly broad discovery).

  5. In re Patel

    218 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 13 times
    Denying the discovery of federal income tax returns where pending discovery might provide the information sought

    proceeding) (per curiam) (providing that the scope of discovery is largely within the discretion of the trial court). Discovery is generally permitted of any unprivileged information relevant to the subject of a lawsuit, whether it relates to a claim or defense of the parties. TEX.R. CIV. P. 192.3(a); see In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (providing that although the scope of discovery is broad, requests must show a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid the dispute's resolution and may not be used as a fishing expedition).

  6. In re the Lincoln Elec. Co.

    91 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 10 times

    As such, this request is tantamount to a fishing expedition, which has been specifically prohibited by Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989) and its progeny. Defendant Lincoln further objects to this request as it is overly broad and not appropriately limited in scope to (1) the time at issue, i.e. the 1987 test and (2) the areas of testimony sought in the Notice of Videotaped Deposition. See: Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995) and In Re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998). To the extent that this request is not reasonably limited, then it exceeds the scope of discovery as defined in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 192.3(a) as the information that exceeds a reasonable limitation is irrelevant, immaterial, inadmissible, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  7. In re Am. Power Conversion Corp.

    No. 04-12-00140-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322-23 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); see In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (concluding that no adequate appellate remedy existed where the trial court ordered overly broad discovery).

  8. In re Valvoline Company

    No. 01-10-00208-CV (Tex. App. May. 14, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Nonetheless, a trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). The trial court should not order discovery exceeding what is permitted by the rules of procedure.

  9. In re Exmark Mfg. Co.

    299 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that it was not error to allow discovery as to various product lines where manufacturer failed to present evidence showing that the product lines lacked the assembly at issue, although the order nevertheless exceeded the scope of permissible discovery by neglecting to set a reasonable time limit

    In re Weekley Hermes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322-23 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); see In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (concluding that no adequate appellate remedy existed where the trial court ordered overly broad discovery).

  10. In re Nolle

    265 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 14 times

    TEX.R. CIV. P. 192.4; In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). Requests for production must be "reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case."