In re State Farm Lloyds
In re State Farm Lloyds
518 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App. 2015)
October 28, 2015
Summary
The Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by State Farm Lloyds, which argued against the production of discovery in native or near-native formats. The Court clarified that ESI should be produced in a "reasonably usable" format, providing guidance for future ESI production in MDL cases.
IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS
NUMBERS 13–14–00651–CV
Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Delivered and filed October 28, 2015
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Counsel
Daniel Lim, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Houston, Patrick Oot, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Washington, for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerice of the United States of America.John Atkins, John H. Martin, Richard B. Phillips Jr., Thompson & Knight LLP, Dallas, for Amicus Curiae Lawyers for Civil Justice.
Robert L. Florance IV, Pope Hardwicke Christie Schell Kelly & Taplett, L.L.P., Fort Worth, for Amicus Curiae Texas Association of Defense Counsel.
George S. Christian, Texas Civil Justice League, Austin, Amicus Curiae Texas Civil Justice League
Jennifer Bruch Hogan, James C. Marrow, Richard P. Hogan Jr., Hogan & Hogan, Houston, Amber Anderson Mostyn, John Steven Mostyn, Rene Michelle Sigman, The Mostyn Law Firm, Houston, for Real Party in Interest.
Brian M. Chandler, Ramey, Chandler, Quinn & Zito, P.C., Houston, David R. Stephens, Lindow Stepens Treat LLP, San Antonio, Jonathan M. Redgrave, Redgrave LLP, Chantilly, Mathea K.E. Bulander, Redgrave LLP, Minneapolis, Mollie C. Nichols, Redgrave LLP, Washington, for Relator.
Per Curiam
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Relator, State Farm Lloyds (“State Farm”), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which it *57 contends that the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by ordering the production of discovery in native or near-native formats rather than “reasonably usable” formats.[2] By order previously issued in this cause, this Court granted temporary relief and requested that the real parties in interest, the MDL plaintiffs, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX.R.APP. P. 52.8(a),(b). Such response has been duly filed.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, No. 13-14-00616-CV, 519 S.W.3d 647, 2015 WL 6520998 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi Oct. 28, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem.op), issued this same date. Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court and DENIES the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX.R.APP. P. 52.8(d).
Footnotes
See Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); Tex.R.App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
This cause arises from MDL Nos. 13–0123, 13–0130, & 13–0418 in the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna presiding.