IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00455-CV
IN RE EOG RESOURCES, INC.
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EOG Resources, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking protection
from discovery requests that it contends are overly broad and unduly burdensome. The
underlying action arose when a trailer placed on a well site in Johnson County shifted
during a severe storm. Eric Woodward, the plaintiff in the underlying action, was
inside the trailer and sustained severe injuries. Woodward filed suit against multiple
parties, including EOG, for several causes of action including negligence, negligence per
se, premises liability, and gross negligence as to EOG. Woodward seeks compensatory
and punitive damages.
Woodward served discovery requests upon EOG. EOG responded to the
discovery requests, and objected that they were overly broad and unduly burdensome, in addition to other objections. Woodward filed a motion to compel EOG to fully
respond to the requests. The trial court granted the motion in part, but limited the
production requested to all of EOG’s well sites in the United States for the five years
preceding the date of the accident as to certain requests. Because we find that the trial
court abused its discretion, we will conditionally grant the writ in part and deny in part.
EOG complains that the interrogatories and requests for production are still
overly broad. The disputed interrogatories as propounded sought all information
about communications, conversations, policies, use, and installation of trailers, with
various descriptions, in any geographic region where EOG does business for a period of
ten years or more. EOG is a multinational corporation with operations in eleven states
in the United States, as well as Canada, China, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United
Kingdom. The disputed requests for production as propounded sought all documents
relating to the specific trailer in which Woodward was injured as well as all documents
relating to “portable offices and sleeping quarters,” “any other trailer leased by EOG for
use as temporary offices and living quarters,” “temporary trailers used as dwellings
and temporary offices at EOG drilling sites,” “trailers,” and “substantially similar
trailers at its drilling sites.”
Availability of Mandamus Relief
Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there
is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009)
(orig. proceeding). Although the scope of discovery generally is “within the trial court's
discretion, the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits.”
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 2 Id. (quoting In re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2006) (orig.
proceeding)). A trial court abuses its discretion if it orders discovery exceeding the
scope permitted by the rules. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003) (orig.
proceeding); K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (orig.
proceeding); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding).
Waiver
Woodward argues that EOG failed to preserve their objections by failing to
provide details regarding why the discovery requests at issue were burdensome. But
EOG objected to Woodward’s requests as overly broad and irrelevant. Overly broad
requests for irrelevant information are improper whether they are burdensome or not,
so the defendants were not required to detail what they might encompass. See In re
Allstate County Mut. Ins. Co., 227 S.W.3d 667, 670 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); In re
CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153; In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 22 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 1999)
(orig. proceeding).
We do, however, agree that evidence was required for EOG to preserve its
objections regarding burdensomeness, which it failed to do. Therefore, we will address
only whether the interrogatories and requests for production were overly broad or
irrelevant.
Overly Broad Requests
“Discovery orders requiring document production from an unreasonably long
time period or from distant and unrelated locales are impermissibly overbroad.” In re
CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 149. We must determine whether or not the trial court’s ruling
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 3 limiting Woodward’s requests as propounded is still overbroad as to time, location, and
scope, and could have easily been more narrowly tailored to the dispute at hand. See In
re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153 (“A central consideration in determining overbreadth is
whether the request could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid including
tenuous information . . . .”).
We find that the trial court could have tailored the interrogatories and requests
for production more narrowly than it did, and that its failure to do so constituted an
abuse of discretion. While the trial court appropriately limited the length of time for
production, the breadth of the required production as to geographical location and the
type of structures involved is overly broad. Therefore, we sustain EOG’s complaints as
to interrogatories numbers 4, 7, 13, 15, 18, and 19. We sustain EOG’s complaints as to
production requests numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 22, and 36.
Other Requests
EOG further complains that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling
objections to two requests for production because they do not specifically state what
documents Woodward is seeking. The first seeks “all Documents on which you will
rely to support any defense you assert in this case.” The second seeks “all Documents
relating to the damages claimed by Plaintiffs in this case.” The Rules of Civil Procedure
require a party seeking production of documents or other discovery to “specify the
items to be produced or inspected, either by individual item or by category, and
describe with reasonable particularity each item and category.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 196.1(b).
Our inquiry for determining whether a request is overly broad includes a determination
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 4 of whether or not the request could have easily been drawn more narrowly. See In re
CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153. We find that the first request is overly broad under that
standard as it does not adequately specify what items or categories of items it seeks
with reasonable particularity. Instead, it seeks the production of any document that
might be considered to be used during the trial for any defenses that ultimately might
or might not be asserted to whatever causes of action or trial strategies Woodward
chooses to pursue at trial. Additionally, we find that the second request is also overly
broad in that it seeks production of documents without specifying to what damages it
refers. Woodward is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00455-CV
IN RE EOG RESOURCES, INC.
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EOG Resources, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking protection
from discovery requests that it contends are overly broad and unduly burdensome. The
underlying action arose when a trailer placed on a well site in Johnson County shifted
during a severe storm. Eric Woodward, the plaintiff in the underlying action, was
inside the trailer and sustained severe injuries. Woodward filed suit against multiple
parties, including EOG, for several causes of action including negligence, negligence per
se, premises liability, and gross negligence as to EOG. Woodward seeks compensatory
and punitive damages.
Woodward served discovery requests upon EOG. EOG responded to the
discovery requests, and objected that they were overly broad and unduly burdensome, in addition to other objections. Woodward filed a motion to compel EOG to fully
respond to the requests. The trial court granted the motion in part, but limited the
production requested to all of EOG’s well sites in the United States for the five years
preceding the date of the accident as to certain requests. Because we find that the trial
court abused its discretion, we will conditionally grant the writ in part and deny in part.
EOG complains that the interrogatories and requests for production are still
overly broad. The disputed interrogatories as propounded sought all information
about communications, conversations, policies, use, and installation of trailers, with
various descriptions, in any geographic region where EOG does business for a period of
ten years or more. EOG is a multinational corporation with operations in eleven states
in the United States, as well as Canada, China, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United
Kingdom. The disputed requests for production as propounded sought all documents
relating to the specific trailer in which Woodward was injured as well as all documents
relating to “portable offices and sleeping quarters,” “any other trailer leased by EOG for
use as temporary offices and living quarters,” “temporary trailers used as dwellings
and temporary offices at EOG drilling sites,” “trailers,” and “substantially similar
trailers at its drilling sites.”
Availability of Mandamus Relief
Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there
is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009)
(orig. proceeding). Although the scope of discovery generally is “within the trial court's
discretion, the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits.”
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 2 Id. (quoting In re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2006) (orig.
proceeding)). A trial court abuses its discretion if it orders discovery exceeding the
scope permitted by the rules. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003) (orig.
proceeding); K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (orig.
proceeding); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding).
Waiver
Woodward argues that EOG failed to preserve their objections by failing to
provide details regarding why the discovery requests at issue were burdensome. But
EOG objected to Woodward’s requests as overly broad and irrelevant. Overly broad
requests for irrelevant information are improper whether they are burdensome or not,
so the defendants were not required to detail what they might encompass. See In re
Allstate County Mut. Ins. Co., 227 S.W.3d 667, 670 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); In re
CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153; In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 22 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 1999)
(orig. proceeding).
We do, however, agree that evidence was required for EOG to preserve its
objections regarding burdensomeness, which it failed to do. Therefore, we will address
only whether the interrogatories and requests for production were overly broad or
irrelevant.
Overly Broad Requests
“Discovery orders requiring document production from an unreasonably long
time period or from distant and unrelated locales are impermissibly overbroad.” In re
CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 149. We must determine whether or not the trial court’s ruling
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 3 limiting Woodward’s requests as propounded is still overbroad as to time, location, and
scope, and could have easily been more narrowly tailored to the dispute at hand. See In
re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153 (“A central consideration in determining overbreadth is
whether the request could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid including
tenuous information . . . .”).
We find that the trial court could have tailored the interrogatories and requests
for production more narrowly than it did, and that its failure to do so constituted an
abuse of discretion. While the trial court appropriately limited the length of time for
production, the breadth of the required production as to geographical location and the
type of structures involved is overly broad. Therefore, we sustain EOG’s complaints as
to interrogatories numbers 4, 7, 13, 15, 18, and 19. We sustain EOG’s complaints as to
production requests numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 22, and 36.
Other Requests
EOG further complains that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling
objections to two requests for production because they do not specifically state what
documents Woodward is seeking. The first seeks “all Documents on which you will
rely to support any defense you assert in this case.” The second seeks “all Documents
relating to the damages claimed by Plaintiffs in this case.” The Rules of Civil Procedure
require a party seeking production of documents or other discovery to “specify the
items to be produced or inspected, either by individual item or by category, and
describe with reasonable particularity each item and category.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 196.1(b).
Our inquiry for determining whether a request is overly broad includes a determination
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 4 of whether or not the request could have easily been drawn more narrowly. See In re
CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153. We find that the first request is overly broad under that
standard as it does not adequately specify what items or categories of items it seeks
with reasonable particularity. Instead, it seeks the production of any document that
might be considered to be used during the trial for any defenses that ultimately might
or might not be asserted to whatever causes of action or trial strategies Woodward
chooses to pursue at trial. Additionally, we find that the second request is also overly
broad in that it seeks production of documents without specifying to what damages it
refers. Woodward is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. We find that both
of these requests could have been more narrowly tailored. We sustain EOG’s issue as to
requests for production number 24 and 26.
EOG complains that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling its
objection to a request for production that sought “all Documents and other tangible
items which you feel support and may support the contention that Trailer 450 was not
unreasonably dangerous to its occupants….” The basis of EOG’s complaint in this
mandamus proceeding is that the request seeks documents to establish a negative,
which is impossible. However, EOG did not make this argument to the trial court in its
objections to request for production number 19. Therefore, the argument EOG made is
waived. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(e). We overrule EOG’s complaint regarding request for
production number 19.
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 5 Conclusion
We find that the trial court abused its discretion as described above. However,
we hold that EOG waived its objection to request for production 19. We conditionally
grant the petition for writ of mandamus in part and deny the petition in part. We are
confident the trial court will vacate its order compelling the responses to the
interrogatories and requests for production of documents above and proceed in
compliance with this opinion. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to take
appropriate action in accordance with this opinion. Woodward’s motion for sanctions
is denied. The stay of proceedings in the trial court is lifted.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition Conditionally Granted in Part, Denied in Part Opinion delivered and filed February 9, 2011 OT06
In re EOG Resources, Inc. Page 6