in Re State Farm Lloyds ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
04-15-00474-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
7/28/2015 4:51:49 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
04-15-00474-CV
No. ____________
Court of Appeals, Fourth District FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
San Antonio, Texas SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
07/28/2015 4:51:49 PM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
In re State Farm Lloyds
Relating to Cause Nos. 2014-CVF-001162-D1, 2014-CVF-001048-D1
in the 49th Judicial District Court
Webb County, Texas
OPPOSED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
STAYING THE SHARING OF DISCOVERY PENDING MANDAMUS
J. Joseph Vale
jvale@atlashall.com
State Bar No. 24084003
Sofia A. Ramon
sramon@atlashall.com
State Bar No. 00784811
Dan K. Worthington
dkw@atlashall.com
State Bar No. 00785282
ATLAS, HALL & RODRIGUEZ, LLP
818 Pecan/P.O. Box 3725
McAllen, Texas 78501
(956) 682-5501 (phone)
(956) 686-6109 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Relator
State Farm Lloyds
July 28, 2015
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Relator State Farm Lloyds (“State Farm”) files this motion for temporary
relief requesting a stay of identical sharing provisions in protective orders entered
in two cases, permitting State Farm’s confidential information to be shared with
other litigants in “Related Litigation.” (Rec. Tab 18, Rec Tab. 19.) 1 State Farm
respectfully submits that the sharing provision in each of these orders fails to
adequately protect State Farm’s proprietary materials from unnecessary and
unreasonable dissemination. If Plaintiffs’ counsel is permitted to share discovery
with litigants whose cases bear only a tenuous relationship to these cases, it will
cause irreparable harm and undermine this mandamus proceeding. Moreover,
because the discovery Plaintiffs will receive is unaffected by whether their counsel
can share that discovery with other litigants, Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a
temporary stay of the provision providing for sharing. Accordingly, State Farm
requests temporary relief pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 52.10, briefly staying the
sharing provision in each of Respondent’s orders during the pendency of this
proceeding.
1
The protective orders entered in each of the two cases at issue here, Pena v. State Farm
Lloyds et al., Cause No. 2014-CVF-001048-D1, and Rodriguez v. State Farm Lloyds et al.,
Cause No. 2014-CVF-001162-D1, contain identical sharing provisions. State Farm seeks a stay
of the operation of this provision in each case.
2
ARGUMENT
A stay pending mandamus is warranted because (1) the merits strongly favor
mandamus relief; (2) in the absence of a stay, State Farm will face considerable
prejudice because its confidential information will have been disseminated
unnecessarily; (3) discovery sharing will have wide-ranging effects; and
(4) Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice from the short delay pending mandamus.
First, the merits of State Farm’s petition strongly favor mandamus relief.
As set forth more fully in State Farm’s petition, Respondent’s protective orders
contain an overly broad sharing provision which allows Plaintiffs’ counsel to share
State Farm’s confidential information with litigants who would not otherwise have
access to it. Respondent’s orders permit Plaintiffs’ counsel to share certain
confidential information in other “Related Litigation” against State Farm which
lacks reasonable temporal, geographic, or scope limitations. Because the sharing
provision is not narrowly tailored, it does not adequately protect State Farm’s
confidential information.
Second, in the absence of a stay pending mandamus, State Farm would be
faced with the irreparable harm it is seeking to prevent: the unnecessary and
unwarranted dissemination of its confidential information. Thus, without a stay,
even if this Court decides the petition is meritorious, State Farm would be unable
to remedy the harm of over-dissemination. This is the very reason that State Farm
3
has no adequate remedy on appeal and has sought review by mandamus. See In re
Ford Motor Co., 211 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
(no adequate remedy by appeal when trial court declared documents fell outside of
protective order). Further, Texas courts have stayed trial court orders pending
mandamus where the protection of confidential information is at stake. See, e.g.,
In re Guidant Corp., No. 13-06-00036-CV, 2008 WL 4257243, at *1, 2008 Tex.
App. LEXIS 6923 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 15, 2008, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.) (per curiam) (describing prior stay of trial court’s order striking a
stipulated protective order). Notably, this Court recently granted a stay of another
of Respondent’s discovery orders in these cases from which State Farm has also
sought mandamus relief. See In re State Farm Lloyds, No. 04-15-00451-CV,
Order (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 22, 2015) (per curiam) (Ex. A). 2
Third, the effects of the sharing provision in each of Respondent’s orders are
not limited to the two underlying cases. In fact, they primarily relate to other
cases. The provision permits Plaintiffs’ counsel to share confidential information
produced in these cases in “Related Litigation” brought against State Farm, defined
broadly as any “first-party lawsuit filed in Texas by The Mostyn Law Firm arising
out of a claim for damages to residential, commercial, or personal property as a
2
Available at:
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=2ce01f46-08f1-
48a0-a1b3-aa22addb3082&coa=coa04&DT=Order&MediaID=cc0026a5-f5d8-47a2-b9b0-
2e994f207c0c.
4
result of a hailstorm that occurred in Texas.” (Rec. Tab 18 ¶ 1, Rec. Tab 19 ¶ 1).
Respondent’s orders will thus necessarily have an impact on the conduct of
discovery in any case which qualifies as “related” under this overly broad
definition.
Fourth, Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice from the short delay pending
resolution of State Farm’s petition. Discovery in this case will proceed regardless
of whether Plaintiffs’ counsel is permitted to share that discovery with other
litigants. Plaintiffs will thus suffer no prejudice from the minor delay pending
resolution of State Farm’s petition.
5
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, State Farm’s motion for temporary relief should
be granted and the sharing provision in Respondent’s July 13, 2015 protective
orders should be stayed during the pendency of this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Joseph Vale
J. Joseph Vale
jvale@atlashall.com
State Bar No. 24084003
Sofia A. Ramon
sramon@atlashall.com
State Bar No. 00784811
Dan K. Worthington
dkw@atlashall.com
State Bar No. 00785282
Atlas, Hall & Rodriguez, LLP
818 Pecan/P.O. Box 3725
McAllen, Texas 78501
(956) 682-5501 (phone)
(956) 686-6109 (facsimile)
Attorneys for State Farm Lloyds
6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5) and 52.10(a),
Dan K. Worthington, counsel for State Farm, notified counsel for plaintiffs by
expedited means, specifically via telephone, that this motion is being filed. The
plaintiffs are opposed to said motion.
/s/ J. Joseph Vale
J. Joseph Vale
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document (and any attachments) was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic case filing
system of the Court. I also certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served on all counsel of record on July 28, 2015, as follows:
Recipient: Attorney for: Served by:
J. Steve Mostyn Plaintiffs/real parties Electronically
(jsmdocketefile@mostynlaw.com) in interest if available, or
THE MOSTYN LAW FIRM by facsimile
3810 West Alabama Street Raul Rodriguez,
Houston, Texas 77027 Noemi Rodriguez,
Fax: 713-714-1111 and Alma Pena
and
Gilberto Hinojosa
(ghinojosa@ghinojosalaw.net)
LAW OFFICE OF GILBERTO HINOJOSA,
P.C.
622 E. Saint Charles St.
Brownsville, Texas 78520
Fax: 956-544-1335
Hon. Jose A. Lopez Trial Certified mail,
Webb County Courthouse judge/respondent return receipt
1110 Victoria St. Suite 304 requested
Laredo, Texas 78040
/s/ J. Joseph Vale
J. Joseph Vale
8
EXHIBIT A
FILE COPY
In re State Farm
LloydsAppellant/s
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
July 22, 2015
No. 04-15-00451-CV
IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
ORDER
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
On July 20. 2015, relator State Farm Lloyds filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an
opposed motion for temporary relief. This court is of the opinion that a serious question
concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest may file a response to the petition
for writ of mandamus in this court no later than August 13, 2015. Any such response must
conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.
Relator’s request for temporary relief is GRANTED. The trial court’s order signed July
16, 2015 requiring relator to produce specified documents in response to plaintiffs’ requests for
production is temporarily stayed pending final resolution of the mandamus petition filed in this
court.
It is so ORDERED on July 22, 2015.
PER CURIAM
ATTESTED TO: _____________________________
Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2014-CVF-001162 D1, styled Raul Rodriguez and Noemi Rodriguez v.
State Farm Lloyds and Felipe Farias, and 2014-CVF-001048 D1, styled Alma Pena v. State Farm Lloyds and Becky
Lanier, pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding.