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

NO. 03-09-00 361 -CV

In r e M ar ve l R e e d

OR IG IN A L PR OC E E D IN G FR OM WI L L IA MS ON C OU N T Y

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
This case involves a Tex as cour t’s power to order the production of doc uments from a nonpar ty witness for use in a Minnesota divorc e procee ding. We hold that the trial court did not have the power

to order a

nonparty witness to produce documents other tha n as s p ecif

ied by the Texas Civi l Practice s and Remedie s Code and the Te x as Rules of Civil P roce dure. A ccor dingly , we conditionally

g rant the w rit of mandamus a nd instruct the trial cour

t to vacate its discovery

order
.

BACK GR OUND Relator is a nonpa

rty witness, who is the sister of Ray mond E. Graf

, the husband a

nd responde nt in the s uit for divorce pending in Minnesota. Rea l party in interest is Tammy

J . Gra f, the wife a nd p et i t i o n er in the Minnesota divorce suit. Relator se eks mandamus relief f rom the trial court’s discove ry order compelling production of documents i n Texas for use in a Minnesota divorc e pro ceedi ng on

the g ro un d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r v iol a te s se c tio n 2 0. 00 2 o f t he Te xas C ivi l Practice s and Remedies Code and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e. See Te x. Civ . Pra c . & R e m.I n addition to addressing the issue of discove ry from re lator, the Minnesota pr etrial orde r 1 addre ssed discover

y issues reg ardingA.G. Edwa rds and L arr

y Dunnahoe , a Te x as CPA. The Minne so ta

or de r a lso re sc he du le d th e pr e tr ia l he ari ngand tr ia l date s. 2 Code Ann. § 20.002 (West 2008); Tex. R. Civ. P. 201.2. Specifica lly , relator contends that the tr ial court’s or der violate s the s tatute and rule because no “mandate, writ, or c ommissi on” has be en issued b y t h e M i n n es o t a c o u rt i nwh i ch t h e r ea l p ar t y i ni n t er es t ’s d i v o rc e i s p en d i n g. On Fe bruar

y 10, 2009, a Minnesota district cour t entere d a pre trial order

addre ssing
v ar i o u s u n d er l y i n g i s s u es , i n cl u d i n g v ar i o u s d i s co very disputes, in Graf v. Graf

, No. 01-F A-07-1324, Orde r (Minn. Dist. Ct. Feb. 10, 2009). I n r e le va nt p art , th e Minne so ta

or de r s ta te s: 1
6. A writ shall be issued to the State of Texas for Mar

vel Reed to produc e within 15 day s from the date of t his Orde r or as ordered by the Texas District Court all rec ords since 2001 . . . . 7. A writ shall be issued to the St ate of Texas for Mar

vel Reed to submit for or a l de po sit ion a s ou tli ne d in t he Rul e s o f C ourt

fo r t he State of

Te xas w ith in 30 day s of the re ceipt of the p ro d u ct i o n of docume nts or as orde red by the Te xas D istri c t Co ur

t.
See id. , No. 01-F A-07-1324, O rder , at 3-4 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Feb. 10, 2009)
.

Real party in inter est filed the Minnesota orde r with the Will iamson County District C o u rt o nAp ri l 6 , 2 0 0 9 , an d , o nAp ri l 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e d i s t ri ct cl er k s en tn o t i ce o f r egi s t ra t i o no f f o re i gn
su pp or t or de r t o Ra

y mon d E . G ra f a s a

no nr e g ist e ri ngpa

rt y . T he re c or d b e fo re us refl ect s so me confusion on the pa

rt of the district cle rk as to how to handle t h e Minnesota orde r and, in a series of ema ils b et we en the dist rict cle rk and c ounsel for r eal pa rty in interest, counse l reque sted the district clerk to file the Minnesota orde r as a foreig n order , not a fore ign judg ment, and to cor rec t theT h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s o r d e r w a s s i g n e d

o nJ u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , an d

f i l e d t h e n e x td ay. 2 Relator also soug ht an emer g ency stay , which this Court gr anted on July 8, 2009. 3 3 notice pre viously

sent on April 21, 2009. On M ay 20, 2009, the district cler k sent notice of f

iling of for eig n order

in cause number 09-1044- F425 to Ray mond Graf

. Real p ar t y i n interest issued a subpoe na duce s tecum on April 27, 2009, and relator filed a ple a to the jurisdiction, motion to quash and for protec tive order
. After a hea ring on M ay 2 6 , 2009, the trial cour t entere d the discover

y order that is the subject of this orig inal p ro ce ed i n g. I n it s o rd e r, the tr ia l c ourt “ c lari fi e d” the Minne so ta or de r a nd or de red re la tor

to 2 produce the documents soug ht by rea l pa rty in inter est on or befor e 5:00 p.m. J une 30, 2009. The trial court ther eaf

ter e x tended the time f

or produc tion until 5:00 p.m. on J uly 10, 2009, and re lator soug ht mandamus relief

. 3
DI SCU SSIO N Rel a to r r a is e s thr e e c o mp la in ts a b o u t t h e tr ia l c o u rt’ s d is c o v e r

y o r d e r . Re la tor
c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

g ra nti ngdis c ov e ry wh e n th e Minne so ta c ourt did not issue a “mandate, writ, or commission” in compliance with Texas law and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e. Relator a lso contends that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by al t er i ng the Minnesota orde r under

the g uise of “c larify

in g” that order

and by order ing the production of voluminous bank recor ds without a prior in camera inspection.

We observe that an orde r for discovery

that is cont ra ry t o T ex as law or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e is revie wable by m an d amus . See, e .g. , In re Am er. Optical , 98 8 S. W.2 d 7 11 , 71 3 ( Te x. 19 98 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ) ( “ An or de r c omp e lli ngdis c ov e ry that is4

we ll o uts ide t he pr op e r b ound s is re vie wa ble by mand a mus .” ); W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. v . Street , 754 S.W .2d 153, 155 (Tex
. 1 9 8 8 ) (orig. proc eeding ) (g ranting mandamus to overr ule location of deposition of Sam Walton). To obtain mandamus re lie f, relator must show that the trial court clea rly abused its discre tion and that there is no adequate re medy
. Se e In re M cAl len Me d. Ctr

. , 27 5 S. W.3 d 4 58 , 4 62 , 4 64 -6 9 (T e x. 20 08 ); In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135-36 (T e x. 20 04 ); W

alker v . Pack

er , 827 S
. W
. 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 40 (Tex. 1992). When, as her e, mandamus proce eding s arise out of the trial court’s interpre tation of statutes or leg al rules, our revie w is to be conducte d with limi ted def ere nce to the tr ial court. W alker , 827 S.W .2d at 840. Be cause “[a] trial court has no ‘discre tion’ in deter mining what the l aw is or apply ing the law to the fa cts,” e rrone ous
ana ly sis or

a pp lic a tio n o f t

he law “ wi ll c on sti tut e an a bu se of dis c re tio n, and

may re su lt i n a

pp e llate
reve rsal by

extraordinary

writ.” Id. To fa c ili ta te dis c ov e ry in Te xas fo r use in a fo re ig n jur isd ic tio n— i.e ., in a no the r s ta te or country

—Texas law provides what is known a s a “he lping” statute. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. § 2 0. 00 2 ( “ Te sti mony Re qu ir e d b y

F or e ig n Jur isd ic tio n” ). Se c tio n 2 0. 00 2 s ta te s:
I f a c ourt of re c or d in any oth e r s ta te or fo re ig n jur isd ic tio n iss ue s a mand a te , w ri t, or c o mm is s io nth a t r e qu ir e s a w it n e s s ’ s te s ti mo n y

in th is s tate , e it

h e r to w r itte n questions or by

oral de position, t he witness may be compelled to appea

r and te stify in the s am e m an n er a

nd by the same pr ocess use d for takingtestimony in a proce eding pending in this st ate.
Id. I n a dd iti on , Ru le 20 1. 2 o f t he Te xas R

ule s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s:
I f a c ourt of re c or d o f a

ny oth e r s ta te or fo re ig n jur isd ic tio n issu e s a ma nd a te , w ri t, or c omm iss ion that re qu ir e s a witn e ss’ s ora l or wr itt e n d e po sit ion

te sti mony

in t his5

State, the wit ness m ay be compelled to appea r and testify in the same ma nner a nd by the same pr ocess use d for takingtestimony in a proc eedingpending in this S tate.
Tex. R. C iv. P. 201.2.

Re la tor argue s th a t r e a l pa

rt y in int e re st ha s fa ile d to com ply wi th the statut e and

ru le beca use the Minnesota c ourt has not issued a “mandate, writ, or commission” w ithin the meaning of the statute or

rule. Rea l party

in interest re s p o n d s that the terms “ma ndate,” “wr it,” and

“ c omm iss ion ” are us e d in te rc ha ng e a bly in t he statut e and

ru le and that th e Minne so ta

or de r i s a mandate w ithin the meaning of the statute a nd rule. R ea l party

in interest furthe r re sponds that whether the Minnesota cour

t order is a

“mandate, writ, or commissi on” withi n the m eaningof the statut e and

ru le is a qu e sti on of fa c t to be de c ide d b y

the tr ia l c ourt
. To dec ide whethe r to g rant the discove ry soug ht by

rea l party

in interes t , the trial court wa s require d to inter pret section 20.002 of the civil prac tices and r emedies c ode and r ule 201.2 of the rule s of civil proce dure. Our revie w of the trial court’s inter pretation thus presents a question
o f s tatuto r

y c o n s tr u c ti o n , w h ic h is a qu e s ti o n o f la w , n ot fac t. S

ee , e.g. , State v. Shumak e , 19 9 S. W.3 d 2 79 , 2 84 (T e x. 20 06 ); see also W alker , 8 27 S.W. 2d at 84 0. B y its us e of

the te rm s “m andate , writ, or commission,” the leg islature has sig naled a specific meaningand intent of the statute and rule, and it is our job to discern this intent from the words chosen by t h e l egi s l ature
. See Shum ake , 1 99 S.W. 3d a t 28 4; City of San Antonio v. C i t y o f B o erne , 111 S.W .3d 22, 25 (Tex. 2003). The Tex as statute and r ule expressly

authorize relator to seek discove ry from a T exas resident f or use in a f

oreig n jurisdiction only if the court of record in that jurisdiction has issued aSee 25B A m. J ur. Pleading & Practice F orms §§ 36 (motion f

or order g ranting commission 4 to de pose witness in f

oreig n state or country

), 48 (c ommissi on to take deposition in fore ign state or country ) (Rev. e d. 2001). 6 “mandate, writ, or c ommissi on.” Rea l party in inter est argues—and the trial court ag ree d—that the Minnesota orde r wa s a “ma ndate, wr it, or commission” w ithin the meaning of the statute and rule
. B ut t he se te rm s are lega l te rm s o f a rt wi th s pe c if

ic me anin g s in

the dis c ov e ry

c on te xt, and the

4 Minne so ta

c ourt re c og nize d as muc h in its F e br ua ry 10 th o rd e r. B y

its pla in t e rm s, that or de r s ta te s, “A wr it shall be issued to the State of Tex as . . . .” But nothi ng in the re cord be fore us demonstrates that the Minnesota cour t ev er i s s ued a w rit to the State of Texas as conte mplated in its order. B e c a us e the Minne so ta

or de r i s p hrased

in t he futur e te ns e —“ a

wr it shall be issued

”—we cannot construe that order to be the “mandate, writ, or c ommissi on” conte mplated under section 20.002 or Rule 201.2. S

e e, e.g. , In r e Prince , No. 14-06-00895- CV, 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 10558, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006) (orig. procee ding) (California court i ssued commi ssion for Har ris County

trial court to issue subpoena for p ro d u ct i o n of docume nts and for Prince ’s ora l de po sit ion ); W

ar for d v . Ch ild e rs , 642 S.W .2d 63, 65 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1982) (H awa iian trial
c ourt iss ue d c omm iss ion

to t a ke de po sit ion

of Chi lde rs, a L ubbo c k, Te xas, po lic e of fi c e r i n Lubbock). Stated differ ently , the plain lang uag e of the Minnesota order contemplates further action on the par t of the Minnesota c ourt. As a result, we cannot construe that order to be the “mandate, writ, or commission” as c ontemplated in the statute a nd rule. Al tho ug h a

c ourt ha s the po we r an d duty

to c on tr ol t

he dis c ov e ry

pr oc e ss, it m ay

on ly do so within the confines of the rules of ci v i l p ro ce dure. See I n re Guzman , 19 S.W .3d 522, 525 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, orig. proc eeding ). B eca use re al par

ty in interest seeks discoveryBe cause we conclude that the trial court abused its discr etion in orderingdiscovery from 5 relator in the absenc e of a “wr it, mandate, or c ommissi on” within the meaningof the statute a nd rule, we do not re ach r elator’ s additional g rounds for ma ndamus relief

. 7 fr om r e la tor , w ho is a

no np art y to t he un de rl y ing div or c e pr oc e e din g , we c ann ot e xcu se re a l pa rt y in interest’s fa ilure to comply with the express require ments of the statute and rule. See I n re Prince , 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 10558, at *9-11 (identifying and explaining differ ent standar ds under Te x as
ru le s for c omp e lli ng dis c ov e ry fr om part ie s ver su s non pa rt ie s)
. I n the a

bs e nc e of a “ mand a te , w ri t,
or com mi ssi on ” wi thi n th e me anin g of se c tio n 2 0. 00 2 a

nd ru le 20 1. 2, the tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n in

or de ri ngre la tor ’s pr od

ucti on of do c ume nts
. See W

alker , 827 S.W .3d at 840 (trial 5 court’s f ailure to c orre ctly

analy ze and apply

the law c onstitut es an a buse of discr etion). We, the re fo re , c on dit ion a lly

g ra nt r e la tor ’s pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of mand a mus and ins tr uc t th e tr ia l c ourt

to
va c a te its dis c ov e ry

or de r. Th e wr it w ill iss ue on ly if the tr ia l c ourt

do e s n ot c omp ly

wi th this opini on.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Patterson and H enson Dissenting O pinion by J ustice He nson Filed: Jul y

10, 2009