In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00199-CV __________________
IN RE BROOKE ADAMS MANUEL
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. D-205,780 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Evidence of a position taken by a party opponent in an
administrative proceeding is relevant, though not dispositive, in a
lawsuit that concerns facts of consequence shared by the two disputes. In
this wrongful-death suit, the representative of the decedent’s estate,
Brooke Adams Manuel, asserted claims in contract and in tort against
the hospice care affiliated entities and its employee—a social
worker/grief counselor—whom the petitioner alleged developed an
improper relationship with the decedent, Frank Adams. According to the
1 allegations in the petition, the employee used her influence to coerce and
exploit Frank Adams for her financial gain.
Manuel, as the representative of the Estate of Frank Adams, served
a request for production on Karen Elizey Havens, the Real Party in
Interest, asking Havens to produce copies of documents relating
to the complaint filed by Brooke Adams Manuel and/or her counsel that was submitted to the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners on May 12, 2020. This request includes any and all opinions, findings, and/or written responses, including any recorded statements (whether in written, audio or digital format), along with any supporting documentation that you submitted and/or received from the State of Texas and/or the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners relating to such complaint.
Havens objected to the request on several grounds, including relevance.
For example, she objected to responding and claimed the request was too
broad, not reasonably limited in scope, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And she asserted the request
called for information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Manuel moved to compel after receiving Havens’ response. During
the hearing, Havens’ attorney offered to provide the trial court with a
letter he submitted to the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Board on
Havens’ behalf, asking that the trial court inspect the letter in camera
2 and determine if the letter was discoverable. After examining the letter,
the trial court issued an order denying Manuel’s motion to compel. The
order denying the motion states the trial court denied the motion “for the
following reasons: Relevance[.]”
Subsequently, Manuel petitioned for mandamus relief from the
order. In her petition, she argues the trial court abused its discretion in
finding the request she served on Havens did not seek information
relevant to the disputed issues in her suit. 1
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available when a trial court
clearly abuses its discretion and no adequate remedy exists through the
filing of an ordinary appeal. 2 When a trial court denies a party’s discovery
request, the petitioner may show that an abuse of discretion occurs by
showing (1) the trial court could have reached only one conclusion when
deciding whether the material sought was discoverable, (2) the trial court
erred in determining the law applicable to the dispute, or (3) the trial
1See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3, 194.2(b)(9). 2In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36, 138 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding). 3 court erred in applying the law to the facts, even when the law is
unsettled. 3
Generally, the rules that govern the scope of permissible discovery
allow parties to discover “any matter that is not privileged and is relevant
to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim
or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any
other party.” 4 The Rules of Civil Procedure go on to state it “is not a
ground for objection that the information will be inadmissible at trial if
the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” 5 The trial court should, however, limit
discovery when “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative” or “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit[.]” 6
Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or
less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of
3In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding). 4Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). 5Id. 6Id. 192.4.
4 consequence in determining the action.” 7 To be discoverable, evidence
need not necessarily be admissible, instead the information being sought
need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. 8
In general, Manuel’s pleadings allege that Havens violated her
duties to Adams while treating him in the course and scope of her
employment as a social worker. Havens, through her attorney, told the
Board what Havens’ position was concerning Manuel’s allegations, which
assert that Havens engaged in an improper relationship with Adams.
The letter the attorney sent to the Board also addresses Manuel’s claims
alleging that Havens was assigned by her employer to Adams as a social
worker. Therefore, we cannot understand why the trial court deemed
Manuel’s request irrelevant given the issues in the administrative
proceeding, the issues in the lawsuit, and the rules governing discovery
in civil suits.
When Havens responded to Manuel’s request to produce, she
argued that she was not working for Adams as his counselor or social
7Tex. R. Evid. 401. 8In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2021)
(orig. proceeding). 5 worker when their personal relationship developed. In this Court, she
argues that her position that she was not working for Adams when their
personal relationship developed was confirmed by John Brian. Brian
testified in a deposition that he was supervising Havens, who was then a
graduate student working on her master’s degree in social work, when
she accompanied him to a meeting where he counseled Adams. Havens
argues that Manuel is not entitled to mandamus relief because factual
disputes exist, and she concludes the trial court had the right to resolve
them in deciding whether Havens was entitled to the documents she
requested. And certainly, there are factual disputes: during Brian’s
deposition, he conceded on cross-examination that Havens signed the
bereavement plan of care that Brian and others created for Adams under
Medicare requirements as Adams’ social worker.
But we look to the pleadings to decide what is within the scope of
discovery in a civil dispute. 9 Absent a finding of bad faith or falsity, we
9In re Methodist Primary Care Grp., No. 14-17-00299-CV, 2017 WL 3480292, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2017, no pet.) (“Courts measure the scope of discovery by the live pleadings regarding the pending claims.”). 6 must assume the allegations in the pleadings were filed in good faith.10
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00199-CV __________________
IN RE BROOKE ADAMS MANUEL
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. D-205,780 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Evidence of a position taken by a party opponent in an
administrative proceeding is relevant, though not dispositive, in a
lawsuit that concerns facts of consequence shared by the two disputes. In
this wrongful-death suit, the representative of the decedent’s estate,
Brooke Adams Manuel, asserted claims in contract and in tort against
the hospice care affiliated entities and its employee—a social
worker/grief counselor—whom the petitioner alleged developed an
improper relationship with the decedent, Frank Adams. According to the
1 allegations in the petition, the employee used her influence to coerce and
exploit Frank Adams for her financial gain.
Manuel, as the representative of the Estate of Frank Adams, served
a request for production on Karen Elizey Havens, the Real Party in
Interest, asking Havens to produce copies of documents relating
to the complaint filed by Brooke Adams Manuel and/or her counsel that was submitted to the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners on May 12, 2020. This request includes any and all opinions, findings, and/or written responses, including any recorded statements (whether in written, audio or digital format), along with any supporting documentation that you submitted and/or received from the State of Texas and/or the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners relating to such complaint.
Havens objected to the request on several grounds, including relevance.
For example, she objected to responding and claimed the request was too
broad, not reasonably limited in scope, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And she asserted the request
called for information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Manuel moved to compel after receiving Havens’ response. During
the hearing, Havens’ attorney offered to provide the trial court with a
letter he submitted to the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Board on
Havens’ behalf, asking that the trial court inspect the letter in camera
2 and determine if the letter was discoverable. After examining the letter,
the trial court issued an order denying Manuel’s motion to compel. The
order denying the motion states the trial court denied the motion “for the
following reasons: Relevance[.]”
Subsequently, Manuel petitioned for mandamus relief from the
order. In her petition, she argues the trial court abused its discretion in
finding the request she served on Havens did not seek information
relevant to the disputed issues in her suit. 1
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available when a trial court
clearly abuses its discretion and no adequate remedy exists through the
filing of an ordinary appeal. 2 When a trial court denies a party’s discovery
request, the petitioner may show that an abuse of discretion occurs by
showing (1) the trial court could have reached only one conclusion when
deciding whether the material sought was discoverable, (2) the trial court
erred in determining the law applicable to the dispute, or (3) the trial
1See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3, 194.2(b)(9). 2In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36, 138 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding). 3 court erred in applying the law to the facts, even when the law is
unsettled. 3
Generally, the rules that govern the scope of permissible discovery
allow parties to discover “any matter that is not privileged and is relevant
to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim
or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any
other party.” 4 The Rules of Civil Procedure go on to state it “is not a
ground for objection that the information will be inadmissible at trial if
the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” 5 The trial court should, however, limit
discovery when “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative” or “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit[.]” 6
Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or
less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of
3In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding). 4Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). 5Id. 6Id. 192.4.
4 consequence in determining the action.” 7 To be discoverable, evidence
need not necessarily be admissible, instead the information being sought
need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. 8
In general, Manuel’s pleadings allege that Havens violated her
duties to Adams while treating him in the course and scope of her
employment as a social worker. Havens, through her attorney, told the
Board what Havens’ position was concerning Manuel’s allegations, which
assert that Havens engaged in an improper relationship with Adams.
The letter the attorney sent to the Board also addresses Manuel’s claims
alleging that Havens was assigned by her employer to Adams as a social
worker. Therefore, we cannot understand why the trial court deemed
Manuel’s request irrelevant given the issues in the administrative
proceeding, the issues in the lawsuit, and the rules governing discovery
in civil suits.
When Havens responded to Manuel’s request to produce, she
argued that she was not working for Adams as his counselor or social
7Tex. R. Evid. 401. 8In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2021)
(orig. proceeding). 5 worker when their personal relationship developed. In this Court, she
argues that her position that she was not working for Adams when their
personal relationship developed was confirmed by John Brian. Brian
testified in a deposition that he was supervising Havens, who was then a
graduate student working on her master’s degree in social work, when
she accompanied him to a meeting where he counseled Adams. Havens
argues that Manuel is not entitled to mandamus relief because factual
disputes exist, and she concludes the trial court had the right to resolve
them in deciding whether Havens was entitled to the documents she
requested. And certainly, there are factual disputes: during Brian’s
deposition, he conceded on cross-examination that Havens signed the
bereavement plan of care that Brian and others created for Adams under
Medicare requirements as Adams’ social worker.
But we look to the pleadings to decide what is within the scope of
discovery in a civil dispute. 9 Absent a finding of bad faith or falsity, we
9In re Methodist Primary Care Grp., No. 14-17-00299-CV, 2017 WL 3480292, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2017, no pet.) (“Courts measure the scope of discovery by the live pleadings regarding the pending claims.”). 6 must assume the allegations in the pleadings were filed in good faith.10
Manuel’s live pleadings (her First Amended Petition and First
Supplement to First Amended Petition) allege that Havens’ employer
assigned Havens to treat and provide grief counseling and social services
to Adams. She alleged the counseling sessions with Adams occurred in
2018, 2019 and 2020. And Manuel alleged it was first noticed that
“Havens began staying the night at Frank Adams’ home with frequency”
in the spring of 2019. According to Havens, around July 2019, Havens’
relationship with Adams became “highly inappropriate, given . . . Havens’
position as Frank Adams’ grief counselor and social worker.”
So while Havens disputes Manuel’s claims, Havens’ relationship
with Adams, which according to the pleadings arose around July 2019, is
a fact of consequence in the dispute. Information related to whether she
was assigned to work for Adams by her employer is therefore not
irrelevant to the dispute, and information regarding those facts are in the
letter that Havens’ attorney sent the administrative licensing agency on
10Inre Elara Signature Homes, Inc., No. 09-21-00068-CV, 2021 WL 1418235, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 15, 2021, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). 7 Havens’ behalf when he addressed similar claims that either Manuel or
others had raised in the administrative proceeding.
According to Havens, the trial court determined the document it
examined was not relevant because it contained a statement Havens had
not made under oath. To be sure, the representations that Havens’
attorney made to the Board were not statements made under oath and
are not statements he made with personal knowledge about whether they
were true. But Havens’ insistence that her attorney’s lack of personal
knowledge means he lacks relevant knowledge does not necessarily
follow.
In the administrative proceeding, Havens’ counsel acted as her
agent. So the representations that her attorney made to the Board are
deemed to be representations made by Havens. 11 And unless the
documents Manuel sought are privileged, information compiled from
11See In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 790-91 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (in a discovery mandamus, concluding that USAA’s insistence that its corporate representative’s lack of personal knowledge “necessarily equate[d]” to a “lack of relevant knowledge rings hollow”); Dow Chemical Co. v. Benton, 357 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1962) (noting the general rule is that “as long as the attorney-client relationship endures, with its corresponding legal effect of principal and agent, the acts of one must necessarily bind the other as a general rule”). 8 other sources in a document even if that document might for some other
reason be inadmissible may still be discoverable if the information in the
document is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. 12 But in this instance, the trial court’s analysis stopped at the
relevance step and went no further.
We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by finding the
documents Manuel sought in her request were irrelevant to the dispute.
On the contrary, the evidence before the court shows the trial court, from
the evidence it examined in camera, could have reached only one
conclusion from examining that document—it contained relevant
evidence. Because the trial court clearly erred in applying the law to the
facts, we conclude Manuel lacks an adequate remedy through an
appeal. 13
We are confident that the trial court will vacate its order of June
24, 2021. After vacating its order, the trial court should then consider
Havens’ remaining objections before deciding whether to grant Manuel’s
12Inre USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d at 791. 13In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (orig.
proceeding). 9 motion to compel. A writ of mandamus shall issue only if the trial court
fails to comply.
PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 7, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 4, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.