Ex parte Wal-Mart, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama considers Wal-Mart's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order in a personal-injury action. The court holds that discovery of falling-merchandise incidents at Alabama Wal-Mart stores during the preceding five years was permissible and not unduly burdensome, but that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering discovery of all customer incidents and employee accident forms. The writ is granted in part, directing the trial court to limit discovery to falling-merchandise incidents.

Holdings

1. Mandamus is an appropriate method for reviewing discovery orders, although relief is restricted because discovery matters are committed largely to the trial court's discretion.
2. Discovery of falling-merchandise incidents at Alabama Wal-Mart stores during the five-year period preceding Pierce's injury was permissible because it could lead to admissible evidence of Wal-Mart's knowledge of the danger posed by falling merchandise.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of all customer incident reports and employee accident review forms, because the order extended beyond falling-merchandise incidents; the order had to be limited to falling-merchandise incidents.

Questions Presented

1. Whether mandamus was an appropriate vehicle to review the trial court's discovery order.
2. Whether discovery of falling-merchandise incidents at Alabama Wal-Mart stores during the five years before Pierce's injury was relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of all customer incident reports and employee accident review forms, rather than limiting discovery to falling-merchandise incidents.

Disposition

writ_granted