1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 21
- 00098
- CV

__________________
IN RE LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 128th District Court of Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A180319
- C

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a first

- party insurance case, Relator, Liberty Insurance Co rporation (“Liberty”) responded to written discovery requests from the Real Parties in Interest, Michael Young and John Young (collectively “Young”) by making certain objections and then producing re dacted copies of Liberty’s internal claim’s handling manual, policies , and procedures. Before it produced the redacted documents, Liberty and Young jointly filed an agreed motion for protective order. In the motion, the parties informed the trial court tha t Liberty had identified “confidential and completely sensitive [] ” materials responsive to Young’s discovery requests. Citing2 Texas Rule of Evidence 507 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, they jointly requested that the trial court sign the agreed prot ective order. On April 1, 2019, the trial court signed an agreed protective order, which provided that in the case “Confidential Information” included “any information of any type which is designated as ‘Confidential’ by any of the producing or receiving p arties[.]” Thereafter, Liberty produced documents from its claims handling guidelines but redacted information that Liberty alleged had no relationship or relevance to Young’s type of claim. On February 3, 2021, Young filed a motion to compel Liberty to p roduce an unredacted copy of its claims handling guidelines. Young referred to 16 pages of estimating guidelines and 124 pages of operating procedure s containing examples of suggest ed “over

- redactions

. ” Young complained that Liberty redacted claims handlin g instructions for “ 1) Photo claim requirements of an investigation ; 2) Guidelines on supplements ; 3) Flooring and debris removal; 4) Painting and Sealing; 5) Repair v. replace; 6) Matching; 7) Depreciation; 8) Overhead and profit; 9) Cleaning and remediat ion; 10) Channeling/Assignment of claims; 11) Receiving claim; 12) Initial contact rules; 13) Gathering details of claim; 14) Determining coverage; 15) Denial letters; 16) Field Reinspections; 17) Closing claims; 18) Discussing settlement with customers; [ and ] 19) First contact rules. ” Young attached Liberty’s responses to Young’s requests for production, which included request s for3 (1) “all documents used to instruct, advise, guide, inform, educate, or assist provided to any person handling the claim made the basis of this lawsuit that related to the adjustment of this type of claim, e.g. residential burst pipe property damages from Aug ust 1, 2015

– the time the lawsuit was filed [] ” and (2) “Your written procedures or policies (including document(s) maintained in electronic form) that were in effect from August 24, 2017

– the date the lawsuit was filed that pertain to the handling of
comp laints made by policyholders in Texas [.] ” Liberty objected that each request was “overbroad[.]” On February 11, 2021, the trial court held a remote video hearing on Young’s motion to compel. Young argued the entire document should be unredacted because
L iberty redacted sections, such as denial policies and a section on determining
coverage , that were important in a full claim denial policy case. Liberty replied that the case was about a shower pan drain line leak and guidelines concerning other types of c laims were not relevant. Liberty noted that Young’s pleadings did not allege that Liberty violated its internal policies and procedures. On March 29, 2021, the trial court granted Young’s motion to compel Liberty to “un

- redact in full the confidential docu ments that are subject to the Court’s protective order[.]”
M andamus will issue to correct a discovery order if there is a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy at law . In re Colonial Pipeline Co. , 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion4 when its ruling is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it constitutes a clear and prejudicial error of law. In re CSX Corp. , 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). The Texas Rules of Civil Pro cedure allow a discovery request that has a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid in resolution of the dispute. See id

. at 152. However, discovery requests must not be overbroad. In re
Nat ’ l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex . 2014) (orig. proceeding). “A central consideration in determining overbreadth is whether the request could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid including tenuous information and still obtain the necessary, pertinent information.” In re CSX Corp

. , 12 4 S.W. 3 d at 153

. “[A] party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). But “ [o] verbroad requests for irrelevant information are improper whether they are burdensome or not[.]” In re Allstate Cty. Mut. Ins.
Co. , 227 S.W.3d 667, 670 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). An overbroad discovery request is one that seeks irre levant information that is not properly tailored to the dispute at hand as to time, place, and subject matter. In re K & L Auto Crushers,
LLC , No. 19

- 1022, 2021 Tex. LEX I S 427 , at * 18 (Tex. May 28, 2021) ( o rig. proceeding) (not yet reported). “It is the di scovery proponent ’ s burden to5 demonstrate that the requested documents fall within the scope

- of

- discovery of Rule
192.3.” In re TIG Ins. Co. , 172 S.W.3d 160, 167 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2005, orig. proceeding). When a party propounds overly broad requests, the trial court must either sustain the objection or act to narrowly tailor the requests. In re Mallinckrodt,
Inc. , 262 S.W.3d 469, 474 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2008, orig. proceeding). By ordering an unredacted complete production of Liberty’s claims handling guidelines, the trial court necessarily ordered production of information for types of claims other than water damage to single

- family residential dwellings

. Young ’s requested production of “ all ” of Liberty’s policies pertaining to handling

“ compl aints ” made by any Texas policyholders regardless of the type of claim is overly broad and exceeds the scope of relevant information. We conclude that t he trial court abused its discretion by ordering an unredacted production of all of Liberty’s internal estimating guidelines and standard operating procedures notwithstanding Liberty ’s objections that Young’s requests for production were overbroad

. See Allstate , 227 S.W.3d at 670. Appeal is not an adequate remedy when the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court’s discovery error. In re Weekley Homes, L.P. , 295 S.W.3d 309, 322 (Tex

. 2009) (orig.
pr o ceeding). “A discovery order that compels production beyond the rules of procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandam us is the proper remedy.” In6 re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 449 S.W.3d at 488. Liberty lacks an adequate appellate remedy for the disclosure of the documents

. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion and the Relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. We are confident that the trial court will vacate its order compelling discovery in accordance with this memorandum op i nion. T he writ of mandamus shall issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of March 29,
2021

. PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRA NTED.

PER CURIAM Submitted on June 11, 2021 Opinion Delivered August 26, 2021 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.