There are tw o al t er n at i v e spelli ng s for the of fice r’s name containe d in the rec ord. The 1 subpoena lists the name a s Machicha k, but the repor

ter’s r ec o rd l i s t s the name a s Misiasz ek. F or purposes of this opinion, we will use the spe lling provide d in the subpoena. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 10 -00 479 -CV

In r e Hay s C ount y C r im ina l D ist r ic t A tt or ne y’ s Offic e and Te xa s D e par tm e ntof F am ilyand P r ot e c ti ve Se r vic e s

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M H AY S COUNTY

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N On August 9, 2010, relators Ha y s County

Criminal District Attorney ’s Off ice ( the “District Attorne y ”) a

nd the Texas Depa

rtment of F amily

and Pr o te c ti v e Se r

v ic e s ( th e “ D e p a

rtment”) (cumulatively

“Relators” ) filed this petition for writ of ma ndamus. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8. I n the und e r ly

in g c a s e , th e De partment soug ht to be appointed as te mporary manag ing
conser vators of J.L , who is the d au gh t er o f R .L . The District Attorne y acte d as the De partment’s repr esentative for this ca se. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 264.009 (West 2008) (spec ifying who may act a s leg al re prese ntative for Depa rtment). Prior to the filing of this manda mus, R.L
. was a

rre sted ostensibly for the crime of

sexually assaulting J .L .’s sister, S.J
. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.011 ( W e s tS u p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ( d e f

i n i n g s e xu a l a s s a

u l t )
. R
. L
. i s n o tt h e f

a t h e r o f S
. J. Shortly afte r his arr est, R.L . issued a subpoena on the S an Marcos Police De partment requiringOffic er K athy

Machic hak to appea

r duringthe conse rvatorship he aringand to produc e 12

investigative documents per taining to J.Land S.J
. Duringa pre liminary hear ing, O ffice r Mac hichak t e s t i f i e d t h a ts h e h a d

h an d e d o v e r a l l o f h e r i n v e s t i g a t i v e d o c u m e n t s t o t h e D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y . In response to the subpoena, the District Attorney filed a motion for pr otective or der, a sking the district court to “e x ecute a prote ction order preve nting the disc losure of the documents a n d the re lease of the information” r equeste d. See Tex. R. Civ. P . 192.6(a) (authorizing “ person f rom whom discover

y is sought” to f

ile for pr otective or der) . I n an order continuing “the appointment of t he De partment
a s T e mpo ra

ry Mana g ing Con se rv a tor ” of J.L ., the dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso g ra nte d th e pr ote c tiv e or de r w ith
r e g ar d t o t h e d o c u m e n t s s o u g h t b u t s t a t e d t h a t“ t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s o r d e r e d

t o a p p e ar an d t e s t i f y” during a continuation of the conser vatorship hea

ring
. Shortly afte r the district cour

t issu e d it s o r d e r , Relators filed this mandamus, asse rting that the district court did not have “the authority to or der the appea ranc e and testimony

of a police office r in a c ivil case whe n there is a criminal ca se, base d on a similar set of f acts, in which the re ha s been a n arr est but not a

n indictment.” I n challeng ing the district c ourt’s order , Relators ar g ue that the offic er should not be compe lled to testify beca use the infor

mation sought throug h her te stimony is confidential.

When asserting that the information is c onfidential, Relators a nalog ize the testimony fr om Of fi c e r Ma c hic hak to thr e e ty pe s of inf or matio n re qu e sts tha

t hav e be e n d e e me d c on fi de nti a l. First, Relators r efe r to section 552.108 of the g overnme nt code, which excepts from disclosure unde r the pu bli c inf or matio n a c t in fo rm a tio n co nc e rn ing the inv e sti g a tio n o f a c ri me if the re le a se wo uld interfe re w ith “the de t ection, investig ation, or prose cution of” a crime. Te x . Gov’t Code Ann. § 55 2
. 1 0 8 (a ) (W est Supp. 2009). Var ious courts have construed that provision as cre ating a lawenfor ceme nt investigation privilege in civil cases a g ainst discovery reque sts, including reque sts forI n their petition, Relators ac knowledg e that a tr ial co u rt m ay o rder the disclosure of the 2 otherwise confidential information when c erta in prere quisites have bee n met, see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 261.201(b) ( West S upp. 2009), but Relators contend that those require ments have not be en met in this case. 3 investigative documents and inter rog atories s er v ed o n police off icer s. Se e Ho bs on v . M oo re , 73 4 S. W.2 d 3 40 , 3 40 -4 1 ( Te x. 19 87 ); In r e W est woo d A

ffi lia te s, L.L. C. , 263 S.W .3d 176, 179 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Dis t.] 200 7, or ig . pro c e e din g ). I n lig ht of thi s p ri vil e g e , Re lator s in sis t that Offic er Ma chicha

k s hould not be compelled to testify beca use her testimony

will address the
same investigative information that the court prohibited from disclosure in its protec tive order and will interfer e with the investig ation of the a lleg ed assa ult of S.J
. Next, Relators assert that the offic er should not be c ompelled to testify beca use the information s oug ht throug h her te stimony is work produc t and, there fore , not discovera ble. See T e x. R. Civ. P. 192.5( b)(1) (prohibiting discovery of work product that contain’s attorney ’s “m en t al impr e ssi on s, op ini on s, c on c lus ion s, or le g a l th e or ie s” ); see also State ex rel. Curry v. W

alker , 873 S.W .2d 379, 381 (Tex. 1994) (explaining that “ work produc t pr ivilege is a pplicable to liti g ation files in criminal as we ll as civil litigation”) . I n other wor ds, Relators contend that throug h Offic er Machic hak’s testimony , R.L . will effe ct i v el y have a cce ss to “the police r eport, a nd other menta l impressions, espec ially

if the dete ctive nee ds to refr esh her rec ollection.” Finally , when a sserting that the district court er red by requiringOffic er Ma chichak t o t e s t i f y, R e l a t o r s p o i n tt o s e c t i o n2 6 1
. 2 0 1 o f t h e f am i l y c o d e , w h i c he x c e p t s f r o md i s c l o s u r e b y a public information re qu es t “files, r eports, re cords, c ommunications, audiotapes, videotape s, and workingpaper s used or de veloped in an inve stigation” reg ardingsuspected a buse or ne g lect of a child. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 261.201 (West S upp. 2009). As wi th t he ir law- e nf or c e me nt- 2I n their reply brief, the Relators cite to In re Bex ar County Criminal Dis t. Attorney’s Office , 3 224 S.W .3d 182, 185 (Tex. 2007) (orig . proce eding ), as support f or their asser

tion that the district court e rre d by

order ing O ffice r Mac hichak to testify
. That ca se involved a de termination of “whether the work- product privileg e protec ts pr osecutors from testifying in a malicious prosec ution suit when they have a lrea dy

rele ased the prosec ution file.” We are not confronte d with that situation here. 4 investigation-privileg e ar g uments, Relators insist that Officer Machic hak’s testimony

wi l l b e the equivalent of

the re lease of the investig ative re ports and should, there fore , be prohibited. Whil e the Re lator s quic kly po int out th a t th e State may po sse ss a le g iti mate int e re st in preve nting the di s closure of information that could interf ere with a cr iminal prosecution, see In reGo re , 251 S.W .3d 696, 700 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2007, orig . proce eding ), they ignor e the
c omp e tin g int e re st i n n ot d e nying“ c ivi l li tig ants the ir e nti tle me nt to a fu lly a uth or ize d d isc ov e ry

to assist in prepa

ration of the civil lawsuit mere ly beca use criminal matters may

be pending ,” see Tex as Attorney General’s Off

ice v . Adams , 793 S.W .2d 771, 777 (Tex. A pp.—For t Worth, 1990, no pet.). See also In re R.R. , 26 S.W .3d 569, 574 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, orig . proce eding ) (e x plaining that denying a ll discovery

in civil case due to pending criminal ca se is contra ry to public policy

). F urther, unlike the ca ses re lied on by the Relators in which parties file impermissible discove ry reque sts or pu bli c info rm ati on req

ue sts , th is c a se inv olv e s a sit uatio n in wh ic h th e Re lator s are se e kin g to prohibit a police office r from being called as a witness. There is no rule or statute that g ives police office rs a privileg e from being called to testify
. See I n re Bex ar County Criminal Dist. Attorney’s Office , 224 S.W. 3d

18 2, 19 3 ( Te x. 20 07 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ) ( John so n, J., d iss e nti ng ); see also T e x. R. Evid. 501 (stating that e x cept “ as otherw ise provided by Constit ution, by statute,” or by rule, “ no pe rs on ha s a pri vil e g e to: (1 ) re fu se to be a wi tne ss” ). Mo re ov e r, Re lator s h ave po int e d to no c a se pr oh ibi tin g the te sti mony of law- e nf or c e me nt p e rs onne l in

the se c ir c ums tanc e s. 3I n this opini on, we make no asse rt i o n reg ardingwhether the Relators should ask for or 4 wh et h er t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt s h o u l d gra n t s o m e o t h er t y p e o f re l i ef (e
. g. p ro h i b i t i n g t es t i m o n y t h ro u gh additional protec tive order or throug h objections to testimony). Rather , we simply conclude that mandamus re lief is not warr anted in these circ umstances. 5 Finally , althoug h Relators attempt to equate Off icer Machic hak’s testim ony

to the investigative information that was prohibited from disclosure under the protec tive order , the re cord befor e u s d o e s n o t a ll o w u s to e n d o r s e th a t c h ar a c te r iz a ti o n . U n li k e th e p u b li c in f o r mati o nand dis c los ur e r e qu e s t s d i s c u s s e d b y t h e R e l a t o r s i nw h i c ht h e i n f o r m a t i o nt o b e r e l e a s e d

i s e xp r e ssl y ide nti fi e d b e fo re dis c los ur e , th e fu ll n a tur e and e xten t of

the o ff ic e r’ s te sti mony

is n ot e a sil y
asce rtainable befor e the of fice r ac tually

testifies. See In re Bex ar County Criminal Dist. Attorney’s Office , 224 S.W .3d at 193 (Johns on, J ., dissenting) (explaining that witness testimony differ s from documents bec ause f

ull knowledg e of w itness “as to fa cts and matters rele vant to claims made in a lawsuit” cannot be fully

deter mined befor e he or

she testifies). The office r may very well be c alled to provide impermiss ible testimony , but the office r may also be c alled to testify reg arding nonprivileg ed subjec t matters. An d we h av e n ot been pr ovided with a basis upon which w e ca n evaluate t h e officer ’s future testimony
. Id. at 199 (noting superiority of allowingpreliminary t e s t i m o n y t o c r e a t e s o m e r e c o r d

t o a i d i nd e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r p r i v i l e g e e x i s t s )
. In addition, there a

re pr ocedur al tools that may be employ ed to limit t he testimony of a w itness and prohibit disclosure of privileg ed information. Id. at 198 (noti ng that trial court may enter protec tive 4
or de r pr e c lud ing e xami natio n r e g ard ingc e rt a in m a tte rs ); se e In reGo re , 2 5 1 S. W. 3 d 6 9 6 , 7 0 0 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig . proce eding ) (notingsuperiority of allowing trial court to we igh a nd resolve va

rious competingfac tors by cra fting “an individually tailored prote ctive orde r”)
.6 I n light of the fac t that mandamus relief is only ap p ro priate when a tr ial court’s decision constit utes a clear abuse of its di scre tion, see W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-40 (T e x. 19 92 ), and

that w e c an o nly sp e c ulate a t this jun c tur e a s to th e te sti mony that mi g ht u lti mate ly be elicited f

rom the off

icer , we c annot conc lude that the district court er red by compelling Offic er Machic hak to testify

during a hea

ring
. See I

n re R.R. , 26 S.W .3d at 574 (explaining that trial court

“ ha s an o bli g a tio n to we ig h e a c h d isc ov e ry re qu e st a nd a pp ly the law f or dis c ov e ry

or pr ote c tio n to
eac h reque st by

deter mining the least restrictive way to protec t both case s and the de fenda nt’s rig ht to d e fe nd him se lf in thi s suit ” ). Ac c or din g ly , we de ny the Re lator ’s pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

mand amus .

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Filed: Oc tober 1, 2010