Opinion ID: 1823218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: What discovery actions are under review?

Text: The January 25 and April 3 orders required the production of deposition testimony and customer files. As to deposition testimony, on January 25 the trial court ordered Orkin to produce all corporate representative depositions in cases regarding fraud and termite treatment. The April 3 order was silent as to deposition testimony. With respect to customer files, the Touarts initially requested the names and addresses of all Orkin customers to whom Orkin had provided termite service in the last 10 years. The January 25 order directed Orkin to produce all files for homes inspected in the same district as [the Touarts] for the years 1994-2004. The April 3 order, however, varied from the January 25 order to the extent that it directed Orkin to produce its Alabama customer files from the years 1978 to 2002. The April 3 order does not reference the January 25 order. Reading the two orders in concert, we note that the April 3 order modified the January 25 order to the extent its provisions were inconsistent with the prior order. When these orders are so construed, the directive in the January 25 order concerning production of depositions was unchanged. As to customer files, however, the April 3 order changed the directive in the January 25 order. [3] Because of that change, the contested items under review here are production of (a) all corporate representative depositions in cases regarding fraud and termite treatment, and (b) the Alabama customer files of Orkin from the years 1978 to 2002.