In re Harris

In his first issue, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to turn over "electronic media" for forensic examination when there was neither a pending request for production nor any request for production of documents with which he had not complied. The trial court abused its discretion not only by compelling production of overly broad discovery without addressing appellant's motion for protective order and without a motion to compel discovery from appellant before it, but also by issuing its even more invasive order that appellant produce his hard drives and by failing to require plaintiff to make any showing that the benefit of the discovery she sought outweighed the burden and expense to appellant. Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, No. 01-09-00771-CV, 04-22-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

OPINION

This is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator, Art Harris, requesting that we direct the trial court to withdraw discovery orders against Art Harris issued on January 27, 2009, May 11, 2009, and August 28, 2009.*fn1 In five issues, Harris argues that the trial court abused its discretion: (1) in ordering Harris to turn over “electronic media” for forensic examination when there was neither a pending request for production nor any request for production of documents with which he had not complied; (2) in ordering Harris to respond to the Special Master’s questions and to assess usage and contents of other electronic media listed in the Special Master’s August 17, 2009 email; (3) in refusing to apply Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3 and other discovery procedures on the treatment of privileged documents and creation of privilege logs; (4) by failing to consider Rule 171 in appointing a special master to conduct forensic computer examinations; (5) by appointing a special master to investigate and inquire into patterns of discovery abuse, or, in the alternative, by failing to remove a special master who is acting outside the limitations and specifications stated in the Order appointing him, including reading attorney-client communications.

In re Harris

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Texas Lawyer