Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

^{^[1]} &nb= sp; =20 We overrule Relator=3Ds motion for rehearing, withdraw our = July 10, 2007=20 opinion, and issue this substitute memorandum = opinion.

^{^[2]} &nb= sp; =20 The Election Code provides a claim = to=20 opposing political committees for violations of the code = provisions. =20 See Tex. Elec. = Code Ann.=20 ' 253.132 (Vernon 2003). = Specifically,=20 Citizens alleged that True Mobility violated sections 253.096 and = 253.097,=20 which provide, respectively, that a corporation (1) Amay make campaign contributions from its = own=20 property in connection with an election on a measure only to a = political=20 committee for supporting or opposing measures = exclusively,@ and (2) Anot acting in concert with another = person may make=20 one or more direct campaign expenditures from its own property in=20 connection with an election on a measure if the = corporation@ makes the expenditures in accordance = with the=20 reporting requirements contained in the Election Code. = Id.=20 '' 253.096, 253.097. =

^{^[3]} &nb= sp; =20 According to Citizens, in = Hammond,=20 the Texas Association of Business made the same constitutional = privilege=20 arguments against discovery as True Mobility asserts in this = case. =20 However, in that case, the trial court compelled=20 discovery.

^{^[4]} &nb= sp; =20 In its motion for rehearing, = Citizens=20 appears to suggest that True Mobility waived all of its = non-constitutional=20 discovery objections by not mentioning them in its response in = opposition=20 to Citizens=3D motion to compel. However, we = note that=20 True Mobility did ask the trial court to sustain all of its = objections to=20 the discovery requests, and any failure to brief the = non-constitutional=20 objections in this response would not result in waiver of the=20 non-constitutional objections. In addition, we do not have a = record=20 of the arguments of counsel at the two hearings on the motion to = compel,=20 and True Mobility may have argued its non-constitutional = objections at=20 those hearings. Indeed, True Mobility=3Ds counsel = has=20 submitted an affidavit to this court in which he recalls arguing = that the=20 trial court should sustain all of True Mobility=3Ds=20 objections.

^{^[5]} &nb= sp; =20 In its motion for rehearing, = Citizens=20 implies that it may have made such an argument in its petition = because:=20 (1) it argued that the discovery sought was relevant and necessary = to=20 prove its claims (2) therefore, the discovery requests could not = be vague,=20 overly broad, and unduly burdensome. While Citizens did = assert in=20 its petition that the discovery sought was relevant, it did not = analyze=20 the discovery requests and attempt to show how the trial court = clearly=20 abused its discretion in sustaining objections that the requests = are=20 vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Nor did Citizens = cite=20 authorities in support of such an argument in its petition.=20

^{^[6]} &nb= sp; =20 In its motion for rehearing, = Citizens=20 asserts for the first time that True Mobility was required to = submit=20 evidence in support of its objections that the requests are vague, = overly=20 broad, and unduly burdensome. Citizens bases this assertion = on the=20 premise that a party objecting to discovery must always provide = evidence=20 in support of all its objections at a motion-to-compel = hearing. =20 However, this premise is incorrect. See In re Union = Pacific=20 Resources Co., 22 S.W.3d 338, 339B40 (Tex. 1999) (holding that evidence is = not=20 always necessary to support all discovery objections and that = trial court=20 did not abuse its discretion in sustaining relevance objections = that were=20 unsupported by evidence). Indeed, in one of the cases cited = by=20 Citizens, the Texas Supreme Court concluded the trial court abused = its=20 discretion by sustaining a privilege objection absent evidence = supporting=20 the privilege; however, the Supreme Court held that the trial = court did=20 not abuse its discretion in sustaining objections that a discovery = request=20 was vague and overbroad, without presentation of any = evidence. =20 See Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 147B48 (Tex. 1989). Even if True = Mobility were=20 required to produce evidence in support of its Aunduly burdensome@ objections, it was not required to do = so as to=20 its vagueness and overly broad objections. See In re = Union=20 Pacific Resources Co., 22 S.W.3d at 339B40; Loftin, 776 S.W.2d at = 147B48. In any event, in response to=20 Citizens=3D motion for rehearing, True Mobility has = presented=20 an affidavit from counsel stating that it presented documentary = evidence=20 at the hearings on Citizens=3D motion to compel and that, at=20 Citizens=3D request, no record was made of these=20 hearings.

^{^[7]} &nb= sp; =20 On rehearing, Citizens asserts it = intended=20 to argue in its petition that the trial court abused its = discretion by=20 signing these orders and there is no remedy by appeal because = Citizens was=20 denied discovery of relevant information that goes to the heart of = the=20 litigation. In its motion for rehearing, Citizens states: = A[i]t hardly seems necessary to argue = that the=20 trial court=3Ds exercise of discretion was improper in = this=20 case.@ Mandamus will not lie to review = abatement=20 of discovery unless it is Aof such an egregious nature that it goes = to the=20 heart of [the relator=3Ds] case,@ and Apermanently deprive[s] [the relator] of=20 substantial rights.@ Polaris Inv. Mgmt. Corp. v. = Abascal,=20 892 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Tex. 1995). For example, mandamus will = lie to=20 correct a seven‑year abatement of Adiscovery that goes to the heart of the=20 litigation@ where the Acontinued abatement of the discovery = process after=20 seven years of litigation threatens that evidence critical to the = claims=20 made will become unavailable before discovery can be=20 conducted.@ In re Van Waters & = Rogers,=20 Inc., 62 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. 2001). On rehearing, Citizens=20 contends this case is similar to In re Van Waters & = Rogers,=20 Inc. and states that Athis case has been on hold for more than = a=20 year.@ However, the trial court signed the = first order=20 abating discovery on November 17, 2006Cless than a year ago. Citizens did not = seek=20 mandamus relief against the discovery stay until it filed this = proceeding=20 on March 6, 2007. In addition, after the trial court stayed=20 discovery until it ruled on True Mobility=3Ds motion for summary judgment, Citizens = asked for=20 postponement of the ruling on the summary-judgment motion, and in = doing=20 so, did not ask the trial court to revoke its order abating = discovery=20 until the trial court ruled on the summary-judgment motion. = The=20 trial court granted Citizens=3D request that it postpone consideration = of the=20 summary-judgment motion, which resulted in suspension of discovery = until=20 conclusion of this mandamus proceeding. Even if Citizens had = provided argument in its petition, we question whether Citizens = could have=20 shown itself entitled to mandamus relief as to these two = orders. In=20 any event, the facts revealed by the record in this case are not = similar=20 to In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. See = In re=20 Chu, 134 S.W.3d 459, 466 (Tex. App.CWaco 2004, orig. proceeding) = (distinguishing In=20 re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. and concluding that trial = court did=20 not clearly abuse its discretion in suspending discovery sought in = support=20 of a counterclaim until after trial court ruled on a motion to = dismiss the=20 counterclaim).