Summary
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas denied a petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order compelling Verizon to produce cell-phone records in a personal-injury case. The court held that the relators failed to show that the discovery order, which covered a 25-hour period and included privacy safeguards, denied them an adequate remedy by appeal. The court also vacated its prior stay order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's modified subpoena for Vaught's cell-phone records was so overbroad, particularly in its 25-hour temporal scope, that mandamus relief was warranted.
- Whether the privacy, privilege, and relevance safeguards in the modified subpoena provided an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise defeated mandamus relief.
Holdings
- Relators did not establish entitlement to mandamus relief because they failed to show that the modified subpoena, which applied to one phone for a 25-hour period and included procedural safeguards, denied them an adequate remedy by appeal.
- On the facts presented, procedural safeguards protecting privileged, confidential, and irrelevant cell-phone data may affect whether a discovery order denies the resisting party an adequate remedy by appeal.
Key quotations
“The trial court abuses its discretion by ordering discovery that exceeds that permitted by the rules of procedure.” (at 3)
“Relators have failed to establish how a subpoena that orders production of transactional information only for one cell phone over a 25-hour window and which includes procedural safeguards to protect Relators’ privacy and weed out irrelevant evidence denies them an adequate remedy by appeal.” (at 5)
Factual background
Gregory Vaught, driving an 18-wheeler for Roth Products, collided with the rear of a Lubbock County Sheriff's Office patrol car positioned partially in the right lane. Two deputies were injured, and the plaintiffs alleged that Vaught's inattention and cell-phone use contributed to the collision. The plaintiffs subpoenaed Verizon for Vaught's cell-phone records covering several days around the accident. After the trial court denied a motion to quash, it narrowed the subpoena to the period from 24 hours before through one hour after the collision and required procedures for redacting confidential or irrelevant information.
Procedural history
In an underlying personal-injury action arising from a collision involving a patrol car and an 18-wheeler, the real parties in interest subpoenaed Verizon for cell-phone records of driver Gregory Vaught. The trial court denied Roth Products' motion to quash, later modified the subpoena to cover a 25-hour period and established a redaction and confidentiality protocol. Roth Products and Vaught sought mandamus relief, and the court of appeals temporarily stayed the order before denying the petition and vacating the stay.