1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00023-CV

__________________

IN RE ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

58th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-203,954

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (“Allstate”) seeks 

mandamus relief from an order compelling document production. On January 13, 

2022, the trial court ordered Allstate to respond to the plaintiff’s request to produce 

documents, referred to by the parties as “the McKinsey Slides” and “Homeowner 

CCPR”, that previously were produced to plaintiff’s counsel under a protective order 

in a federal action styled Tarver v. Allstate Texas Lloyds. We temporarily stayed 

production of the documents and obtained a response from the Real Party in Interest, 
2

Hattie Dumas, before submitting the case to the Court.

1 After reviewing the petition, 

response, reply, the mandamus record, and applicable law, we conclude the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion by compelling document production in response 

to facially overbroad discovery requests and Allstate lacks an adequate remedy by 

appeal. We conditionally grant mandamus relief without considering the remaining 

issues presented by Allstate in its mandamus petition. 

The trial court compelled Allstate to respond to Dumas’s requests for 

production, as follows:

Request 1: 

Produce a true and complete copy, in both digital and hard copy, of the 

following pages of the PowerPoint presentation slides [commonly 

referred to as “the McKinsey slides”] that were prepared in connection 

with the feasibility and implementation project performed by 

McKinsey & Company between 1992 and 2000 regarding Allstate’s 

Claims Core Process Redesign (“CCPR”) claim handling system. 

These slides were produced by opposing counsel on behalf of Allstate 

in October 2020 in Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-00586; Steve Tarver and 

Janna Tarver v. Allstate Texas Lloyds; In the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Texas; U.S. District Judge Michael 

Truncale, presiding. I have attached the complaint (Exhibit A), 

production requests (Exhibit B), motion to compel hearing transcript 

(Exhibit C), and the order signed by the district judge (Exhibit D) 

1 A suggestion of death is on file with the trial court. A motion to retain filed 

by plaintiff’s counsel on August 18, 2021, stated that counsel had located Dumas’s 

sister, Gwendolyn Scott-Lee, and that Scott-Lee had filed an application for 

appointment as administrator of the Dumas’s estate. The mandamus record supplies 

no information about the current status of the probate proceedings. The live pleading, 

a motion to retain, and the motion to compel were filed by “Plaintiff” without further 

identification. For ease of reference, we refer to the Real Party in Interest as 

“Dumas”.
3

ordering production in the Tarver case. There are approximately 13,455 

pages in the requested McKinsey slide file.

Request 2:

Produce slides and documents that specifically refer to Homeowner 

CCPR to the extent that the previous production request does not 

encompass production of those slides. Specifically, produce slides and 

documents that specifically refer to homeowner water damage claims. 

These documents were also produced by opposing counsel on behalf of 

Allstate in October 2020 in Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-00586; Steve 

Tarver and Janna Tarver v. Allstate Texas Lloyds; In the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; U.S. District Judge 

Michael Truncale, presiding.

Allstate complains that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering 

irrelevant, overbroad and disproportionately burdensome document production of 

thousands of pages of documents that are twenty to thirty years old and have no 

bearing on whether Allstate complied with its contractual and extra-contractual 

duties when handling Dumas’s 2018 water damage claim.2 Allstate argues there is 

no adequate remedy by appeal for the trial court’s abuse of discretion in ordering 

irrelevant discovery that is not proportional to the needs of the case.

In response to Allstate’s mandamus petition, Dumas argues the substance of 

her deceptive insurance practices and fraud allegations concern the requested 

documents. In her trial court pleadings, Dumas concedes the McKinsey Slides and 

Homeowner CCPR were created long ago, and that Allstate no longer uses CCPR 

2 In a separate issue, Allstate also contends that the trial court erred by striking 

the Declaration of Don Odom when considering Allstate’s Motion for 

Reconsideration of the trial court’s order.
4

terminology in its claims handling process. Dumas’s pleadings include extensive 

recitations that Allstate likely has in its possession information about the mid-1990’s 

CCPR program and allege:

The goals, processes, and procedures of the McKinsey claim 

handling program have been absorbed into Allstate’s overall way of 

doing business. While Allstate might no longer use the CCPR 

terminology, the concepts, and teachings of CCPR in using the claims 

handling department as a profit center remain in effect. Allstate never 

stopped using CCPR in its handling of insurance claims. Allstate never 

hired McKinsey or another consulting firm to take on the monumental 

task of teaching a different claims handling system to its employees, 

instilling a new claim handling culture, or ensuring the elimination of 

CCPR from Allstate’s claim handling culture, goals, and procedures. 

The goals, processes, and procedures left over from the McKinsey 

claim handling program have been used to deny the plaintiff’s claim in 

a deceptive, fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious manner. In the case 

at hand, Allstate employed its CCPR-based claim system in its handling 

of plaintiff’s claim. In doing so, Allstate denied or underpaid plaintiff’s 

claim as part of a strategy and scheme to guarantee or increase its 

surplus and shareholder returns. To date, Allstate continues to delay in 

the payment for the damages to the property. As such, the plaintiff’s 

claim remains unpaid, and the plaintiff was never able to properly repair 

the property.

Dumas’s lawsuit asserts a claim of bad faith, asserting that Allstate breached 

a duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying and delaying payment of a covered 

claim when Allstate knew or should have known its liability under the policy was 

reasonably clear following its January 31, 2018 inspection. She asserts a claim for

breach of contract because Allstate refused to pay the full amount of the cost to repair 

or replace the property damage. Dumas asserts a claim for deceptive insurance 

practices alleging Allstate failed to adequately settle the claim, failed to affirm or 
5

deny coverage within a reasonable time, refused to fully compensate Dumas under

the terms of the policy, failed to timely acknowledge the claims within the statutorily 

mandated time of receiving notice, and failed to accept or deny the claim within the 

statutorily mandated time of receiving all information reasonably necessary to 

investigate the claim. In her pleadings, Dumas alleges Allstate violated the Insurance 

Code by refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, and 

she alleges “[t]he McKinsey claims handling program instructed Allstate’s claim 

representatives to handle plaintiff’s claim in this manner.”

Mandamus 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 discretion 

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 Procedure allow a discovery request that has a

reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid in resolution of the 

dispute. See id. at 152. That said, 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 
6

been more narrowly tailored to avoid including tenuous information and still obtain 

the necessary, pertinent information.” In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 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 irrelevant information not properly tailored to the dispute 

at hand as to time, place, and subject matter. In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 

S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). “It is the discovery proponent’s 

burden to demonstrate that the requested documents fall within the scope-ofdiscovery 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 narrowly tailor the requests. In re 

Mallinckrodt, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 469, 474 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, orig. 

proceeding).

“Discovery orders requiring document production from an unreasonably long 

time period or from distant and unrelated locales are impermissibly overbroad.” In 

re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152. Dumas is not entitled to discover documents 
7

unrelated to the insurance event at issue. See In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 

219, 225 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). A narrowly tailored document request 

about a tort committed in handling a claim should be reasonably limited in time and 

scope to near the time when the loss occurred and when the claim was processed. 

See id. Dumas alleges Allstate still uses the same claims handling “concepts”

described in the McKinsey Documents, but she did not tailor her request to 

documents that were in effect when Dumas’s claims arose. 

Discovery, even of potentially relevant or admissible evidence, may not be 

used as a costly fishing expedition. See K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 

431 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). Rather, requests must be “reasonably tailored”

to include only matters relevant to the case and must be limited to the relevant time. 

See Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). 

A discovery order is overbroad if it could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid 

including tenuous information. See In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153. If the 

requests are overbroad as to time, location, or scope, and could have easily been 

more narrowly tailored to the dispute at hand, mandamus may lie. In re Allstate Cty. 

Mut. Ins. Co., 227 S.W.3d 667 at 669. We conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion by compelling document production in response to facially overbroad 

requests for production. Mandamus is the proper remedy when a discovery order 
8

compels production beyond the bounds of permissible discovery under the 

applicable rules of civil procedure. In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d at 223.

We lift our stay order and conditionally grant mandamus relief. We are 

confident that the trial court will vacate the January 13, 2022 order compelling 

Allstate to respond to Dumas’s request for production. A writ of mandamus will 

issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 8, 2022

Opinion Delivered April 14, 2022

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.