### THE **SUPREME CO** **URT OF**  **TEXAS Post**  **Office Box**  **12248 Austin,**  **Texas 78**  **711**

**Mr. Rob**  **ert B.**  **Gilbreath J** **enkens &**  **Gilchrist 1445**  **Ross Avenue,**  **Suite 3200**  **Da llas,**  **TX 75202-2799**  **Mr. William**  **W. Speed**  **July 03, 1998**  **Mr. Don ald**  **H. Flanary,**  **Jr. Vial**  **Hamilton Koch**  **& Knox**  **1717 Main**  **Street, Suite**  **4400 Dallas,**  **TX 75201**  **Ms. Leslie**  **Kendall Howell**  **(512) 463-1312** 

**Vial Hamilton**  **Koch &**  **Knox 1717**  **Main Street,**  **Suite 4400**  **Dallas, TX**  **75201 Touchstone**  **Bernays Johnston**  **Beall &**  **Smith 120**  **1 Elm Street,**  **Suite 4700** 
**Mr. Jerry**  **M. White**  **Law Offices**  **of Frank**  **L. Branson**  **45 14**  **Cole Avenue,**  **Suite 18**  **00 Dallas,**  **TX 75205**  **Mr. l**  **Hadley Edgar**  **Law Offices**  **of Frank**  **L. Branson**  **4514 Cole**  **Avenue, Suite**  **18 00**  **Dallas, TX**  **75205 Ms.**  **Mary Co**  **lchin Johndroe**  **Cantey &**  **Hanger 801**  **Cherry Street, Suite**  **21 00**  **Fort Worth,**  **TX 7610** **2**

**RE: Case**  **Number 98-0492**  **Court of**  **Appeals Number: 05-98-00868-CV**  **Trial Cour** **t Number:**  **97-07370-B Dallas**  **, TX**  **7527 0-2**  **196 Mr.**  **Frank L.**  **Bra**

**nson Law Offices**  **of Frank**  **L. Branson**  **4514 Cole**  **Avenue, Suite**  **180 0**  **Dallas, TX**  **75205 Mr.**  **L. Keith**  **Slade Tucker Hendryx**  **Taunt on**  **Snyder &**  **Sla de**  **8 Greenway**  **Plaza, Suite 1200**  **Houston, TX**  **77046**

**Style: IN**  **RE JER** 

**RY'S CHEVROLET-BUICK,**  **INC. v.** **..**

**Dear Counsel:**  

### THE **SUPREME CO** **URT OF**  **TEXAS Post**  **Office Box**  **12248 Austin,**  **Texas 78**  **711 (5**  **12 )**  **46>-1312**

**Today, the**  **Supreme Cour** **t of**  **Texas denied**  **the relato**  **r's petition**  **fo r**  **writ of**  **mandamus in**  **the above**  **numbered and styled**  **case. Stay**  **order of**  **June 1,**  **1998, is**  **lifted. Motion**  **for reconsideration**  **of stay**  **order dismissed**  **as moot.**  **Opinion dissenting**  **on denial**  **of petition**  **for writ of**  **mandamus by**  **Justice Gonzalez,**  **jo ined**  **by Justice**  **Hecht.**

**cc: Mr.**  **Earl Bullock**  **Sincerely, John**  **T. Adams,**  **Clerk** 

# � � **.� by** 

**__________________ _**  **Blanca E. Morin, Deputy** 
**Ms. Lisa**  **Rombok, Clerk**  **The Honorable**  **Ed Kinkeade**  **The Honorable**  **Carlos Lopez** 

### IN **THE SUPREME**  **CO URT**  **OF TEXAS**

**No. 98-0492**  **IN RE JERR** **Y' S**  **CHEVROLET-BUICK, IN** **C., RELATOR** 

**ON PETITION**  **FOR WRIT**  **OF MANDAMUS** 

**JUSTICE GONZALEZ,**  **jo ined by**  **JUSTICE HECHT,**  **dissenting from**  **the denial**  **of the petition**  **fo r**  **writ of**  **mandamu s.** 

**I dissent**  **from the**  **denial of**  **the petition**  **fo r**  **writ of**  **mandamus in**  **thi s**  **case. Underlying**  **this request**  **fo r**  **mandamus relief**  **is a**  **personal inj**  **ury action**  **brought by**  **Jace and**  **Theresa Conger**  **against Jerry**  **'s Chevro**  **let-Buick, Inc.**  **(" Jerry**  **'s "),**  **Texas Utilities**  **Electric Company,**  **and Texas Utilities**  **Services, Inc.**  **Jace, a claims**  **ad ju** **ster, was**  **asked to**  **inspect Jerry**  **'s roof**  **fo r**  **hail dam** **age. While**  **on the**  **roof ,**  **Jace came**  **in contact**  **with a**  **power line**  **owned by**  **Texas Utilities**  **Electric Company,**  **which allegedly**  **caused the**  **in ju** **ries fo** **r which**  **he is**  **now suing.**  **The Congers**  **claim that**  **Jerry 's**  **and its**  **general manager**  **had actual**  **knowledge of**  **a dangerous**  **condition created**  **by the**  **power line**  **fo r**  **almost two**  **years prior to the**  **accident. They**  **allege that** 
**someone from**  **Texas Utilities**  **came to**  **Jerry 's**  **to inspect the power**  **line, and**  **the inspector**  **inf ormed**  **Jerry 's**  **that a guy wire**  **supporting the**  **line had**  **been ,cut,**  **causing the**  **power line**  **to sag dangerously**  **close to**  **the roof**  **on which**  **Jace was**  **wor king.**  **It is**  **Jerry 's**  **actual ,**  **sub j**  **ective awa** **reness of**  **the condition**  **and alleged**  **fa ilure**  **to warn**  **Jace or**  **remedy the**  **problem that**  **fo rm**  **the bases**  **fo r**  **the**

### Congers' **gross neglig** **ence claim and**  **punitive damag** **es request.**  **To that**  **end, the**  **Congers have**  **requested dis** **covery of**  **Jerr y's**  **fina ncial**  **statements fo** **r years 1 9**  **94- 1 9**  **97 in**  **order to determine**  **Jerr y's**  **net worth,**  **which would**  **be rel** **evant to**  **the proper**  **amount of**  **pu nitive**  **damag es**  **that may**  **be award** **ed. Luns**  **fo rd**  **v. Mo** **rris,** 

### 746 **S.W. 2d**  **47 1,**  **473 (Tex.**  **1 9 88).**  **Over Jerry**  **'s ob** 

**je ctions,**  **Judge Carlos**  **Lopez allowed**  **the discovery.**  **Jerr y's**  **filed a**  **petition asking**  **this Court**  **to issue**  **mandamus relief preventing**  **discovery of**  **their fina** **ncial statements**  **due to**  **the confidential and**  **sensitive nature**  **of such**  **informa tion.**  **We granted**  **a stay**  **to consider**  **Jerry 's**  **request, but**  **much to**  **my chagrin, that**  **stay will**  **be lifted and**  **the discovery**  **will go**  **fo rward**  **because of**  **the Cour** **t's refusal**  **to hear this**  **case. Jerry**  **'s contends**  **that it**  **should not**  **be required**  **to produce**  **fina ncial**  **statements to**  **the Congers**  **until they have**  **stated a**  **fa ctual**  **basis fo** **r recovery**  **of exemplary**  **damag es**  **and have**  **made a**  **prima fa** **cie showing**  **that they**  **are entitled**  **to recover**  **exemplary dama** **ges. I**  **agre e.**  **I have**  **suggested bef** 

**ore that**  **a plaintiff**  **shoul d**  **be required**  **to demonstrate**  **a fa** **ctual basis**  **fo r**  **punitive dam** **ages bef** 

**ore being**  **allowed to**  **discover fm**  **an cial**  **inf orma**  **tion from**  **which net**  **worth can**  **be determ** **ined. Wa** **l-Mart Sto** **res, In** **c. v.**  **Al exand**  **er,** 

### 868 **S. W.2d**  **322, 33**  **1 - 32**  **(Tex. 1 9** **93) (Gonzalez,**  **J., concurrin** **g). Further** **more, it is also my**  **view that**  **plaintif fs**  **should make**  **a prima**  **fa cie**  **showing that**  **punitive damages**  **are appropriate**  **bef ore**  **they may**  **discover net**  **worth inf**  **orma tion.**  **This procedure**  **would protect defendants**  **from intrus** **ive and**  **pointless discovery**  **of sensitive,**  **private ,**  **and confidential**  **net worth**  **inform ation**  **based upon**  **a plaintif**  **fs mere**  **assertion of**  **gro ss**  **negligence in**  **a petition.**  **!d.** 

### Moreover, this **procedure is**  **consi stent**  **with and complements the**  **requirement that**  **trials**

**2 of cases involving claims**  **fo r**  **exempla ry**  **damages be**  **bifurcate d.**  **TEX. CIV.**  **PRAC. & REM.**  **CODE §** 

**41 .009;**  **Tr ans** 

**portation In** **s. Co.**  **v. Mo**  **riel, 879**  **S.W .2d**  **1 0 ,**  **30 (Tex.**  **1 9 94).**  **Although the**  **Court acknowl** **edges the**  **sensitivity of**  **financ ial**  **and net**  **worth informa**  **tion, Mo** **riel, 879 S. W.2d at 30**  **(stating that**  **wealth of**  **a def**  **endant has**  **great potential**  **to pre judice**  **a ju** **r y's**  **determination of**  **di sputed**  **issues in**  **a tort**  **case), we**  **have yet**  **to add**  **ress when**  **and on**  **what basis**  **a party**  **is en** 

**titled to**  **discover that**  **informa tion.**  **These issues**  **are significa**  **nt and**  **demand the**  **Cou rt**  **'s atten**  **tion. We**  **have been**  **willing to**  **addre ss these issues on**  **two previous**  **occasions. The**  **Court gran**  **ted petitions**  **for writ**  **of mandamus**  **in Aramark**  **Un if**  **orm Se** **rvices, In**  **c. v.**  **Ty s** **on, 40**  **Tex. Sup. Ct.**  **J. 84**  **(November 1 5**  **, 1 9** **96), and**  **Perry Ho** **me Contractors,**  **In c.**  **v. Patter**  **son, 39**  **Tex. Sup. Ct.**  **J. 237**  **(Fe bruary**  **9, 1 9** **96), in**  **which we**  **were to**  **determine whether**  **a plaintiff**  **must make**  **a prima**  **fa cie**  **showing of**  **entitlement to**  **exemplary damages**  **bef ore**  **discov ering**  **evidence of**  **a def**  **endant 's**  **net worth.**  **However, we**  **were unable**  **to decide**  **the iss** **ue because those**  **cases were**  **dismissed pursuant**  **to settlement.**  **Perry Ho**  **me Cont** **ractors, In** **c. v.**  **Patt erson,**  **40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J.**  **398 (March**  **6, 1 9** **97) ;**  **Ar amark**  **Un if** 

**orm Servs.**  **, In** **c. v.**  **Ty s** **on, 40**  **Tex. Sup.**  **Ct. J.**  **131 (December**  **1 3 ,**  **1 9 96).**  **The Cou** **rt now**  **has that**  **oppo rtunity**  **again, and**  **I lament**  **its refusal**  **to take**  **advantage of**  **it. It**  **would benefit**  **the bench**  **and bar if**  **we would clarify the**  **stand ards**  **fo r**  **disco vering**  **net worth**  **inf orma**  **tion and**  **esta**

**blish the**  **procedures fo** **r plain**  **tiff s**  **to demonstrate**  **their entitlement**  **to exemplary**  **dama ges.** 

**OPINION DELIVERED**  **: July**  **3, 1 9**  **98 3**  **Justice**