WPC[ șlpn{i;{M{לfUu.ى>w_U:_RߎICIŃL_{,)‡MJ ؉uzZ w8=܉o_V+0i6NԂ,KMTIi&@ܚDnbL-谂 q{ʂ&>Shur'37~jРtI/ ]l_s©v_w&?d.yR_D {!\|32heܻ"gsCKR]*ۉB1Z{Ҽr& yX6I0.OheiXzRe`A)^0vaGTQ,@PdU>.pΪؙۥ^gn ''+#_[)-S"?7>&J}G1Ɍ AVZQG:'^]ʚUN %@ 0F 0 0 0W 0 0 0@ 0 0 0 0q 0s 0) 0< 0N 0a; 0 0v 0% 0 0 0i 0/ 0 0 0o 03U< 0R U.! 0TH!U." 0z" 0D# # 0=$ 0FK$ 0P$ 1$ 0t% 1"& 0''e' 0'UB( 0(U:*UF* + 0. 0c/EF1 0KH1#2 0\5a6U>7 0X!8 0jy8 0e8 0WH9 0W9 09 0j: 0: 0; 0< 0%= 0> 0? 0%"@ 08GA 0KB 0C 0D 0)E 0E 0zF 0+G 0G 0H 0BI 0I 1]J 8KnELK>R BR 0 R 0 S 0<UU 0UU B*MV D1wV D+VU6VU. WU*7WNaW^ cWwoW4sWW 0nW 0 cX 0TgX 0LX 1uY 72|Y 1YN;Z 0D=Z BZHZZZZZZZZ [x9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($    8[V? @dXXd8    V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` XXd8    Vy8Document[4]Document Style.. . XXd8    V 9{8Document[6]Document Style8... XXd8  V 9w8Document[5]Document Style0... XXd8  V:8Document[2]Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` Ԁ    z` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..  2I.3  Ԁ..0..zs B:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..  2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` VJ8Document[3]Document Style..   21.3  Ԁ   z :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P   21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z &:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..   2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..  2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz Ĵ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..  2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....  2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..  2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVc08Document[1]Document Style  @..^    2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Style..   2(1)3  Ԁ. l= :Technical[6]Technical Document Style..   2(a)3  Ԁ. l:%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   .. l7!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style   21.3  Ԁ   .. l6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Style   2a.3  Ԁ   .. lE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document Style    2I.3  Ԁ     .. l<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Style..   2i)3  Ԁ. l<a:Technical[8]Technical Document Style..   2a)3  Ԁ. \h6Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12ptO1H  9`("Courier NewTTOV4Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft  =Y(Xdd=:%\  `$Times NewRoman(2(f$ !    8vh?=dd8     & A`ArialTTltt8Italic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type[2H  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT[[2H  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT[7|A`$ArialTTR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fE2Doc InitInitialize Document Style%( )    (&'(($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0    A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jD4Tech InitInitialize Technical Style( + ( CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?u2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper 3(2(f$ !    8vh?=dd8     % [  `*Times New RomanTT 2Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser X   C"3 HA`$ArialTTCXXXO1<6X9`("Courier NewTTO#12Xd#<6X9`("Courier NewTTH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT  .6 Lines,CSXCorporation,NationalMarine,Inc.,andVecturaGroup!in2002.Wardclaimsthat  exposuretobenzeneandothercarcinogenicchemicalsthroughouthiscareercausedhimto  contractrefractoryanemia/myelodysplasticsyndrome. !   Duringdiscovery,Wardservedinterrogatoriesonalldefendantsthatincludedthe # following: v%n   r(83p! !  "m3"  m3w 2(  16  )3  0 `   Forthetimeperiod1973topresent,pleaseidentifyandgivelastknown N'F " addressandtelephonenumberforallpersonsinthesafetyand/orindustrial :(2!# hygienedepartmentwhohadanyresponsibilityforthesafetyand/or &)"$ industrialhygieneand/orassessmentofthehazardsofbenzeneforthis * #% Defendant.m3w ݌*#&` `       +$'   "m3"  m3 2(  17  )3  0 `   Forthetimeperiod1970topresent,pleaseidentifyandgivelastknown  addressandtelephonenumberforallsafetydepartmentworkersemployed  byDefendant.m3 ( ݌` `      "m3"  m32(  18  )3  0 `   Forthetimeperiod1970topresent,pleaseidentifyandgivelastknown   addressandtelephonenumberforallcorporatephysiciansemployedby   thisDefendant.Y m3݌ ` `  Ќ   󀀀Relators_CSX_ԀCorporation,NationalMarine,Inc.,andVecturaGroupobjectedtothese h` interrogatoriesonthegroundsthattheyare overbroad,harassing,andseekinformationthatis @8  notrelevantandwillnotleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.  Wardthenmovedthe   trialcourttocompelRelatorstoanswertheinterrogatories.Afterahearing,thetrialcourt   modifiedInterrogatory17toexcludepurelyclericalsafetyworkers.Subjecttothismodification,  thetrialcourtorderedRelatorstoanswerInterrogatories16,17,and18.  Thecourtofappeals  deniedRelatorspetitionformandamusrelief. xp ЀRelatorscomplainthattheseinterrogatoriesareoverbroadfortworeasons.First,Relators PH neveremployedWard.TheyaresubsidiariesofAmericanCommercialBargeLine,whichalso (  neverdirectlyemployedWard,butacquiredWardsformeremployer,NationalMarineServices.  Therefore,theidentityofrelatorsmanagerialsafetyandhygienepersonnelandcorporate   physiciansisnotrelevanttoWardsclaims.Second,therequestedtimeperiodextendstwenty " fiveyearsbeyondthetimeWardwasemployedbyAmericanCommercialBargeLine's $  predecessorininterest,NationalMarineServices. `&X"   Mandamusreliefisappropriateonlyifatrialcourtabusesitsdiscretion,andthereisno 8(0!$ adequateappellateremedy.Walkerv.Packer,827S.W.2d833,839(Tex.1992);CSRLtd.v. *#& Link,925S.W.2d591,596(Tex.1996).Theburdenofestablishinganabuseofdiscretionand +$( aninadequateappellateremedyisonthepartyresistingdiscovery,andthisburdenisaheavy  one.CanadianHelicoptersLtd.v.Wittig,876S.W.2d304,305(Tex.1994).Aclearabuseof  discretionoccurswhenanactionis soarbitraryandunreasonableastoamounttoaclearand   prejudicialerroroflaw.CSR,925S.W.2dat596.     Generally,thescopeofdiscoveryiswithinthetrialcourtsdiscretion.DillardDept h` Stores,Inc.v.Hall,909S.W.2d491,492(Tex.1995).However,thetrialcourtmustmakean @8  efforttoimposereasonablediscoverylimits.InreAmericanOptical,988S.W.2d711,713(Tex.   1998).Thetrialcourtabusesitsdiscretionbyorderingdiscoverythatexceedsthatpermittedby   therulesofprocedure.Texaco,Inc.v.Sanderson,898S.W.2d813,815(Tex.1995).    Ourproceduralrulesdefinethegeneralscopeofdiscoveryasanyunprivileged  informationthatisrelevanttothesubjectoftheaction,evenifitwouldbeinadmissibleattrial, xp aslongastheinformationsoughtis reasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscoveryofadmissible PH evidence.Tex.R.Civ.P.192.3(a);seealsoEliLilly&Co.v.Marshall,850S.W.2d155,160 (  (Tex.1993).Also,apartymayobtaindiscoveryofthename,address,andtelephonenumberof  personswhohaveormayhaveknowledgeofanydiscoverablematter.Tex.R.Civ.P.192.3_(c_).   Althoughthescopeofdiscoveryisbroad,requestsmustshowareasonableexpectationof " obtaininginformationthatwillaidthedisputesresolution.AmericanOptical,988S.W.2dat $  713.Thus,discoveryrequestsmustbe reasonablytailoredtoincludeonlyrelevantmatters.Id. `&X"   WardarguesthatRelatorshavenotshownthetrialcourtsorderwassoarbitraryand 8(0!$ unreasonableastoconstituteaclearabuseofdiscretion.SeeJohnsonv.FourthCourtof *#& Appeals,700S.W.2d916,917(Tex.1985).AccordingtoWard,theinformationthese +$( interrogatoriesseekiswithinthescopeofpermissiblediscovery.Wardcontendsthatrelevant  evidenceisnotlimitedtowhatNationalMarineServicessemployeesknew.Wardalsoargues  thatemployeesfromRelatorssubsidiariesmayhaveinformationaboutbargeindustrycustom   thatisrelevanttoanegligenceclaim.SeeBoatlandofHouston,Inc.v.Bailey,609S.W.2d743,   748(Tex.1980)(innegligencecases,evidenceofindustrycustomatthetimeofmanufactureis h` admissibletocomparethedefendantsconductwithindustrycustom). @8    WedonotfindWardsargumentpersuasive.Discoveryordersrequiringdocument   productionfromanunreasonablylongtimeperiodorfromdistantandunrelatedlocalesare   impermissiblyoverbroad.SeeAmericanOptical,988S.W.2dat713;Dillard,909S.W.2dat  492;Texaco,898S.W.2dat815.Forexample,inAmericanOptical,anasbestoslitigationcase,  thetrialcourtorderedthedefendanttoturnovereverydocumenteverproducedrelatingto xp asbestos.AmericanOptical,988S.W.2dat713.Weheldtheorderwasoverbroad,because PH  orderingadefendanttoproducevirtuallyalldocumentsregardingitsproductsforafiftyyear (  periodisanabuseof...discretion.Id.InDillard,weheldthetrialcourtsorderwasoverly  broad,becauseitrequiredDillardtoproduceeveryincidentreportfiledbetween1985and1990   inall227Dillardstoresnationwide.Dillard,909S.W.2dat492.TheCourtexplainedthat "  requestsfordocumentproductionmaynotbeusedsimplytoexplore.Dillard,909S.W.2dat $  492(citingLoftv.Martin,776S.W.2d145,148(Tex.1998)).Finally,inTexaco,theplaintiffs `&X" claimedinjuriousworkplaceexposuretobenzeneandrequestedallsafetyandtoxicology 8(0!$ documentswrittenbythecorporatesafetydirector,includingthosedocumentsregardingother *#& employeesexposureandplantswheretheplaintiffsneverworked.Texaco,898S.W.2dat814. +$( Therequestalsoextendedintoatimeperiodduringwhichtheplaintiffsdidnotworkwiththe  company.Id.ThisCourtheldtherequestwasoverbroad,becauseitwas notmerelyan  impermissiblefishingexpedition;it[was]anefforttodredgethelakeinhopesoffindingafish.   Id.at815. `      Acentralconsiderationindeterminingoverbreadthiswhethertherequestcouldhave h` beenmorenarrowlytailoredtoavoidincludingtenuousinformationandstillobtainthe @8  necessary,pertinentinformation.SeeAmericanOptical,988S.W.2dat713.Arequestto   identifyallsafetyemployeeswhoworkedforRelatorsovera30yearperiod,eventhoughWard   neverworkedforRelatorsorfortheirparentcompanyforthatlengthoftime,qualifiesasthe  kindof fishingexpeditionthisCourthasrepeatedlystruckdown.See,e.g.,Texaco,898  S.W.2dat815.Accordingly,thediscoveryrequestatissuehereisoverlybroad. xp   Wardadditionallyarguesthatthecasesinvolvingrequestsfordocumentproductionare PH distinguishable,becausesuchrequestsarecharacteristicallymoreburdensomethanprovidinga (  listofnamesandaddresses.But,asRelatorsnote,thisCourthasnotidentifieddifferent  standardsforevaluatingvariousdiscoverymethods.SeeKMartCorp.v.Sanderson,937   S.W.2d429,431(Tex.1996)(relyingoncasesinvolvingdocumentproductionrequeststo " reverseatrialcourtsordercompellingKMarttoanswerinterrogatories).InKMart,we $   reject[ed]thenotionthatanydiscoverydevicecanbeusedtofish.Id. `&X"   Finally,Wardclaimsheneedstheidentitiesofthirtyyearsworthofsafetyandindustrial 8(0!$ hygieneemployees,aswellasthenamesofcorporatephysicians,becausetheymighthave *#& informationonbargeindustrycustomfromtheapplicabletimeperiod.SeeBailey,609S.W.2d +$( at748.AlthoughWardmaydiscoverevidenceofindustrycustomatthetimeWardwas  employed,theinterrogatoriesatissuehereimpermissiblyrequestinformationfortwentyfive  yearsbeyondtheapplicabletimeperiod.SeeTexaco,898S.W.2dat815(rejectingplaintiffs   argumentthatanoverbroaddiscoveryrequestlackingappropriatelimitationsastotime,place,or   subjectmatterwasrelevanttoestablishdefendants corporatestrategytoignoresafetylaws). h`   Ifareviewingcourtconcludesthatatrialcourtsdiscoveryorderisoverbroad,thetrial @8  courthasabuseditsdiscretion,andtheordermustbevacatedifthereisnoadequateremedyon   appeal.SeeAmericanOptical,988S.W.2dat713;seealsoWalker,827S.W.2dat840.Here,   noadequateappellateremedyexists.Wehavesaidthatwhereadiscoveryordercompels  productionof patentlyirrelevantorduplicativedocuments,asthisorderundoubtedlydoes,  thereisnoadequateremedybyappealbecausetheorder imposesaburdenontheproducing xp partyfaroutofproportiontoanybenefitthatmayobtaintotherequestingparty.Walker,827 PH S.W.2dat843;seealsoGeneralMotorsCorp.v.Lawrence,651S.W.2d732,734(Tex.1983). (  Wardsrequestcouldeasilybenarrowlytailoredtoobtaininformationpertinenttothetime  periodduringwhichWardwasemployedbyNationalMarineServices.      Aswritten,interrogatories16,17,and18areoverbroad.Theinterrogatorieslack " reasonablelimitationsastotimeandsubjectmatter.SeeTexaco,898S.W.2dat815. $  Accordingly,withouthearingoralargument,weconditionallygrantmandamusreliefanddirect `&X" thetrialcourttovacateitsordercompellingCSXCorporation,NationalMarine,Inc.andVectura 8(0!$ Grouptoanswerinterrogatories16,17,and18.Tex.R.App.P.59.1.Thewritwillissueonlyif *#& thetrialcourtfailstoactpromptlyinaccordwiththisopinion.  +$( ЇOPINIONDELIVERED:October3,2003