1 

In The

Court of Appeals

 Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00199-CV

__________________

IN RE BROOKE ADAMS MANUEL

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-205,780

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Evidence of a position taken by a party opponent in an 

administrative proceeding is relevant, though not dispositive, in a 

lawsuit that concerns facts of consequence shared by the two disputes. In 

this wrongful-death suit, the representative of the decedent’s estate, 

Brooke Adams Manuel, asserted claims in contract and in tort against 

the hospice care affiliated entities and its employee—a social 

worker/grief counselor—whom the petitioner alleged developed an 

improper relationship with the decedent, Frank Adams. According to the 
2

allegations in the petition, the employee used her influence to coerce and 

exploit Frank Adams for her financial gain. 

Manuel, as the representative of the Estate of Frank Adams, served 

a request for production on Karen Elizey Havens, the Real Party in 

Interest, asking Havens to produce copies of documents relating

to the complaint filed by Brooke Adams Manuel and/or her

counsel that was submitted to the Texas State Board of Social 

Worker Examiners on May 12, 2020. This request includes 

any and all opinions, findings, and/or written responses, 

including any recorded statements (whether in written, audio 

or digital format), along with any supporting documentation 

that you submitted and/or received from the State of Texas

and/or the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners 

relating to such complaint.

Havens objected to the request on several grounds, including relevance. 

For example, she objected to responding and claimed the request was too 

broad, not reasonably limited in scope, and not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And she asserted the request 

called for information protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

Manuel moved to compel after receiving Havens’ response. During 

the hearing, Havens’ attorney offered to provide the trial court with a 

letter he submitted to the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Board on 

Havens’ behalf, asking that the trial court inspect the letter in camera 
3

and determine if the letter was discoverable. After examining the letter, 

the trial court issued an order denying Manuel’s motion to compel. The 

order denying the motion states the trial court denied the motion “for the 

following reasons: Relevance[.]” 

Subsequently, Manuel petitioned for mandamus relief from the 

order. In her petition, she argues the trial court abused its discretion in 

finding the request she served on Havens did not seek information 

relevant to the disputed issues in her suit.1

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available when a trial court 

clearly abuses its discretion and no adequate remedy exists through the 

filing of an ordinary appeal.2 When a trial court denies a party’s discovery 

request, the petitioner may show that an abuse of discretion occurs by 

showing (1) the trial court could have reached only one conclusion when 

deciding whether the material sought was discoverable, (2) the trial court 

erred in determining the law applicable to the dispute, or (3) the trial 

1See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3, 194.2(b)(9).

2In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36, 138 (Tex. 

2004) (orig. proceeding).
4

court erred in applying the law to the facts, even when the law is 

unsettled.3

Generally, the rules that govern the scope of permissible discovery 

allow parties to discover “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.”4 The Rules of Civil Procedure go on to state it “is not a 

ground for objection that the information will be inadmissible at trial if 

the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.”5 The trial court should, however, limit 

discovery when “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative” or “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit[.]”6

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of 

3In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tex. 2017) (orig. 

proceeding). 

4Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a).

5Id. 6Id. 192.4.
5

consequence in determining the action.”7 To be discoverable, evidence 

need not necessarily be admissible, instead the information being sought 

need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.8

In general, Manuel’s pleadings allege that Havens violated her 

duties to Adams while treating him in the course and scope of her 

employment as a social worker. Havens, through her attorney, told the 

Board what Havens’ position was concerning Manuel’s allegations,which 

assert that Havens engaged in an improper relationship with Adams. 

The letter the attorney sent to the Board also addresses Manuel’s claims

alleging that Havens was assigned by her employer to Adams as a social 

worker. Therefore, we cannot understand why the trial court deemed

Manuel’s request irrelevant given the issues in the administrative 

proceeding, the issues in the lawsuit, and the rules governing discovery 

in civil suits. 

When Havens responded to Manuel’s request to produce, she 

argued that she was not working for Adams as his counselor or social 

7Tex. R. Evid. 401.

8In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2021) 

(orig. proceeding).
6

worker when their personal relationship developed. In this Court, she 

argues that her position that she was not working for Adams when their 

personal relationship developed was confirmed by John Brian. Brian 

testified in a deposition that he was supervising Havens, who was then a 

graduate student working on her master’s degree in social work, when 

she accompanied him to a meeting where he counseled Adams. Havens 

argues that Manuel is not entitled to mandamus relief because factual 

disputes exist, and she concludes the trial court had the right to resolve 

them in deciding whether Havens was entitled to the documents she 

requested. And certainly, there are factual disputes: during Brian’s 

deposition, he conceded on cross-examination that Havens signed the 

bereavement plan of care that Brian and others created for Adams under 

Medicare requirements as Adams’ social worker. 

But we look to the pleadings to decide what is within the scope of 

discovery in a civil dispute.9 Absent a finding of bad faith or falsity, we

9In re Methodist Primary Care Grp., No. 14-17-00299-CV, 2017 WL 

3480292, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2017, no pet.)

(“Courts measure the scope of discovery by the live pleadings regarding 

the pending claims.”).
7

must assume the allegations in the pleadings were filed in good faith.10

Manuel’s live pleadings (her First Amended Petition and First 

Supplement to First Amended Petition) allege that Havens’ employer 

assigned Havens to treat and provide grief counseling and social services 

to Adams. She alleged the counseling sessions with Adams occurred in 

2018, 2019 and 2020. And Manuel alleged it was first noticed that 

“Havens began staying the night at Frank Adams’ home with frequency” 

in the spring of 2019. According to Havens, around July 2019, Havens’

relationship with Adams became “highly inappropriate, given . . . Havens’

position as Frank Adams’ grief counselor and social worker.” 

So while Havens disputes Manuel’s claims, Havens’ relationship 

with Adams, which according to the pleadings arose around July 2019,is 

a fact of consequence in the dispute. Information related to whether she 

was assigned to work for Adams by her employer is therefore not 

irrelevantto the dispute, and information regarding those facts are in the 

letter that Havens’ attorney sent the administrative licensing agency on 

10In re Elara Signature Homes, Inc., No. 09-21-00068-CV, 2021 WL 

1418235, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 15, 2021, orig. proceeding 

[mand. denied]) (mem. op.).
8

Havens’ behalf when he addressed similar claims that either Manuel or 

others had raised in the administrative proceeding. 

According to Havens, the trial court determined the document it 

examined was not relevant because it contained a statement Havenshad 

not made under oath. To be sure, the representations that Havens’ 

attorney made to the Board were not statements made under oath and 

are not statements he made with personal knowledge about whether they 

were true. But Havens’ insistence that her attorney’s lack of personal 

knowledge means he lacks relevant knowledge does not necessarily 

follow. 

In the administrative proceeding, Havens’ counsel acted as her 

agent. So the representations that her attorney made to the Board are 

deemed to be representations made by Havens.11 And unless the 

documents Manuel sought are privileged, information compiled from 

11See In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 790-91 (Tex. 

2021) (orig. proceeding) (in a discovery mandamus, concluding that 

USAA’s insistence that its corporate representative’s lack of personal 

knowledge “necessarily equate[d]” to a “lack of relevant knowledge rings 

hollow”); Dow Chemical Co. v. Benton, 357 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1962) 

(noting the general rule is that “as long as the attorney-client 

relationship endures, with its corresponding legal effect of principal and 

agent, the acts of one must necessarily bind the other as a general rule”). 
9

other sources in a document even if that document might for some other 

reason be inadmissible may still be discoverable if the information in the 

document is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.12 But in this instance, the trial court’s analysis stopped at the 

relevance step and went no further.

We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by finding the 

documents Manuel sought in her request were irrelevant to the dispute. 

On the contrary, the evidence before the court shows the trial court, from 

the evidence it examined in camera, could have reached only one 

conclusion from examining that document—it contained relevant 

evidence.Because the trial court clearly erred in applying the law to the 

facts, we conclude Manuel lacks an adequate remedy through an 

appeal.13

We are confident that the trial court will vacate its order of June 

24, 2021. After vacating its order, the trial court should then consider 

Havens’ remaining objections before deciding whether to grant Manuel’s 

12In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d at 791.

13In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (orig. 

proceeding).
10

motion to compel. A writ of mandamus shall issue only if the trial court 

fails to comply. 

PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 7, 2022

Opinion Delivered August 4, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.