Opinion ID: 1811971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Discovery of Other Quarries

Text: Interrogatory no. 24 asks whether Vulcan [has] ever acquired rights in property which included an existing rock quarry and that another entity was operating (e.g., selling ag lime, producing rock for sale, etc.) in at the time of said acquisition. It then demands that Vulcan identify all such quarries and provide the name, address, and telephone number of each entity working in that quarry at the time of Vulcan's acquisition. Vulcan responded to interrogatory no. 24 by producing the information relating to every existing quarry that it [had] acquired in Alabama in the last 15 years, Petition, at 23-24, but, in its motion for a protective order, Vulcan objected to the production of information on extraterritorial acquisitions and acquisitions beyond 15 years on the grounds that it would be of negligible benefit to Blizard, and that [r]equiring Vulcan to produce information relating to every quarry [to which] it has acquired the rights ... outside the State of Alabama since the date of its corporate inception [would be] unnecessary, unmanageable and unduly burdensome. Vulcan supported the latter contention with Denson's affidavit, which stated, in pertinent part: 10. Following identification of all existing quarry locations, a search of all records relating to acquisition of these locations will be required. In addition to an estimated volume of 1,300 feet of paper at the corporate offices, an unknown volume of records at seven (7) division offices and over two hundred (200) quarry locations in twenty-one (21) states and Mexico will require extensive review time. The majority of the locations will require extensive review and cross-check of records to accurately respond to this request. A conservative estimate of the time required to locate and identify information in response to this request is 2,040 hours at a cost of $125.00 per hour. This time does not include any travel time and costs that will be necessary to execute a diligent search and review. Vulcan also insists that compliance with the interrogatory would certainly produce an enormous amount of wholly irrelevant information, because, it argues, information regarding quarries in some other state or country that were owned by Vulcan 10 or 20much less 50years ago would not be relevant to the punitive damages analysis in this case. Reply brief, at 19. Blizard's only relevant response to this argument consists of a conclusory assertion that the information may yield admissible evidence regarding the duration of Vulcan's conduct, the existence and frequency of similar past conduct, the degree of awareness of the hazards its conduct caused or is likely to cause, concealment or cover-up of its conduct, and whether the award will deter Vulcan's future conduct. Blizard's brief, at 22. However, as we discussed in Part III.B. of this opinion, such nationwideand international discovery is not closely tailored to the nature of the [plaintiff's claims]. Ex parte Henry, 770 So.2d 76, 80 (Ala.2000). This nexus principle is essential in the context of a punitive-damages review such as is involved here. Likewise, as we noted above, a discovery order exceeding five years is temporally overbroad and improper in the absence of a showing of a substantial need for the materials sought. Clearly, Blizard has not demonstrated such a need for information predating the information of the past 15 years that Vulcan has already produced. For these reasons, the trial court exceeded its discretion in ordering Vulcan to produce the material sought by interrogatory no. 24. Thus, the petition is granted as it relates to interrogatory no. 24.