Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. AND TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Relators
Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15296
Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek
underlying case is a products liability and personal injury
case. Following a 2018 jury trial, the trial court rendered a
judgment against relators Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
and Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively
"Toyota"). This original proceeding relates to the
trial court's January 7, 2019 order denying in part
Toyota's motion to enforce a pretrial protective order.
We deny the petition.
to a pretrial protective order, Toyota designated information
contained in several databases as "Confidential
Information." Toyota also designated four depositions
("the database depositions") as confidential
because the deponents purportedly testified regarding
information in the databases designated
"confidential" and about the databases themselves.
The plaintiffs objected to the designation of the database
depositions as "confidential," and Toyota moved the
trial court to resolve the confidentiality dispute. The trial
court held three hearings on the motions for protection but
did not rule on the motions before trial or before entering
judgment. On January 7, 2019, the trial court issued an order
granting in part, but denying in part, Toyota's motions
for protection. In this original proceeding, relators
complain of the trial court's January 7, 2019 order
denying Toyota's motion for protective order as to
certain deposition testimony. Toyota seeks a writ of mandamus
directing the trial court to enter an order finding that the
four depositions are confidential under the terms of the
protective order and restricting any further use and
dissemination of the depositions or the information revealed
of Mandamus Relief
court's post-judgment order on a motion to enforce a
pretrial protective order is properly reviewed through a
mandamus proceeding. In re Ford Motor Co., 211
S.W.3d 295, 298 n. 1 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (orig.
proceeding); Icon Benefit Adm'rs. II, L.P. v.
Mullin, 405 S.W.3d 257, 261-62 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013,
orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is proper when the trial
court has abused its discretion by committing a clear error
of law for which appeal is an inadequate remedy. In re
Ford Motor Co., 211 S.W.3d at 297-98. A trial court
abuses its discretion if (1) with respect to factual issues
or matters committed to the trial court's discretion, the
trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision,
or (2) with respect to controlling legal principles, the
trial court reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable
as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or
clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.
1992). A trial court has no discretion in determining what
the law is or applying the law to the facts. Id. at
afford the trial court broad discretion in the granting of
protective orders. In re Eurecat US, Inc., 425
S.W.3d 577, 582 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, orig.
proceeding). To justify a protective order, the party
resisting discovery must present facts showing a particular,
specific, and demonstrable injury. Garcia v.
Peeples, 734 S.W.2d 343, 345 (Tex. 1987) (orig.
proceeding). Conclusory allegations are not adequate.
Id. Further, the party seeking a protective order
must provide detailed information to support its claim of
privilege or confidentiality. See In re
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 730, 732-33
(Tex. 2003) ("a party who claims the trade secret
privilege cannot do so generally but must provide detailed
information in support of the claim").
court overruled Toyota's objections to many of the
page/line designations of the database depositions for which
Toyota sought protection and denied Toyota's request for
a protective order as to those designations. After reviewing
the designated excerpts in camera, we conclude Toyota failed
to establish that the information contained in those
designations is confidential as defined by the pretrial
protective order. As such, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Toyota's motion to enforce the
protective order as to that testimony.
on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown
they are entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we
deny relators' petition for writ of mandamus.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the