In re Williams Brothers Construction Co., Inc.

No. 04-25-00407-CV · Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas at San Antonio · November 26, 2025 · No. 04-25-00407-CV

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas conditionally granted in part a construction contractor’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order authorizing net-worth discovery in a wrongful-death action. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of the contractor’s 2022 and 2023 tax returns because the returns were not shown to be the least burdensome means of obtaining net-worth information. The court otherwise upheld the order requiring a corporate deposition concerning net worth, concluding that the contractor had not shown an abuse of discretion in finding a substantial likelihood of success on the exemplary-damages claim.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Williams Brothers to submit to a corporate deposition concerning its net worth because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the real parties in interest, could support a substantial likelihood of success on the exemplary-damages claim.
  2. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of Williams Brothers' 2022 and 2023 tax returns because it did not establish that tax-record production was the least burdensome method of obtaining net-worth information, and the 2022 returns' relevance was not shown.
  3. Mandamus was appropriate to correct the tax-return portion of the discovery order because compelled disclosure of private tax information could not be adequately remedied by appeal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by authorizing net-worth discovery after finding a substantial likelihood of success on the Ferdinands' exemplary-damages claim.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Williams Brothers to produce its 2022 and 2023 income-tax returns in addition to corporate-representative testimony about net worth.
  3. Whether Williams Brothers had an adequate remedy by appeal for the challenged discovery order.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (25)

  • In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018)(followed)
  • In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-43 (Tex. 1992)(followed)
  • In re Sanders, 153 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)(followed)
  • In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • Lunsford v. Morris, 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…