In Re: Laura Lee Redman, Individually, Richard Redman, Individually, Brian G. Redman, Individually, Kristy L. Redman, Individually, Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman Legacy, LP v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00212-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: LAURA LEE REDMAN, §
INDIVIDUALLY, RICHARD
REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, BRIAN G.
REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, KRISTY
L. REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY,
COMMUNITY ACCESS, INC., § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
REDMAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND
REDMAN LEGACY, LP,

RELATORS §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Laura Lee Redman, Richard Redman, Brian G. Redman, Kristy L. Redman,
Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman Legacy, LP, filed this
original proceeding in which they challenge Respondent’s order compelling them to respond to
written discovery. 1 We conditionally grant the writ in part.

BACKGROUND

This original proceeding arises out of an action brought by Real Party in Interest Kenny
S. Frederick (RPI) against Relators, individually and on behalf of Devon Frederick, an
incapacitated person. RPI sued Relators for (among other causes) negligence, negligent
undertaking, premises liability, respondeat superior, and gross negligence, all based upon
personal injuries sustained by Devon from assaults perpetrated by caretakers at David House, the

1
Respondent is the Honorable Austin R. Jackson, Judge of the 114th District Court in Smith County,
Texas.
group home where Devon resided from January 2016 to March 2020. 2 RPI further alleges that
Relators were participants in a “scheme” to monetize their respective real estate holdings (over
forty different properties) by operating care facilities for intellectually disabled persons using
unqualified staff, and seeks to “pierce the corporate veil” to hold the individual defendants liable
for the claims against Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman
Legacy, LP.
Thereafter, RPI served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on
Relators. Relators’ responses contained numerous objections and claims of privilege. On June 2,
2023, RPI filed a motion to compel Relators to respond to the written discovery (the Motion).
The Motion repeats and elaborates upon the claims regarding the alleged scheme among Relators
to realize a profit from the operation of care facilities for disabled persons by hiring inexpensive
(and unfit) staff, the alleged effect of which was increased abuse and neglect of the facilities’
residents such as Devon. The Motion contains a section labeled “specific items from discovery
requests” that this Court reads as a list of the discovery responses the movants deemed
inadequate. However, the Motion does not explain specifically how the responses to the listed
items were inadequate, nor does it present any argument regarding Relators’ objections. The
Motion states only that Relators “stonewalled Plaintiffs [sic] attempts to get discovery” and
“Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to Defendants are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence and are not otherwise objectionable.” The relief requested is similarly
nonspecific, asking Respondent to “compel Defendants to file adequate responses to Plaintiffs’
discovery[.]”
Relators responded to the Motion and objected again to multiple categories of requests,
including those requesting (1) information about properties other than David House, (2)
information for periods of time before 2016 and after 2020 (when Devon resided at David
House), (3) information about financial transactions among Relators, (4) contact information for
employees, and (5) information about communications between Relators and their insurers. In
support of their response, Relators attached the affidavit of Laura Lee Redman, in which she

2
Community Access, Inc. operated David House and employed the caretakers. Redman Legacy, LP owns
the building from which David House operates and leases said building to Community Access, Inc. Redman
Management, LLC is the general partner of Redman Legacy, LP, and Laura Lee Redman and Richard Redman are
limited partners of Redman Legacy, LP. Brian and Kristy Redman are alleged to own several properties involved in
the alleged scheme amongst the defendants.

2
attests to many of the facts set forth in Relators’ discovery responses regarding Relators’
corporate relationships.
Respondent held a hearing on the Motion at which no further evidence was accepted. 3
On July 20, 2023, he issued an order granting the Motion in its entirety. Relators subsequently
filed this original proceeding, and this Court granted Relators’ request for a stay of Respondent’s
July 20 order pending further order of this Court.

AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS RELIEF
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619,
623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Generally, a writ of mandamus will issue only when the
relator has no adequate remedy by appeal and the trial court committed a clear abuse of
discretion. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing these prerequisites, and this burden is a
heavy one. In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 891 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, orig. proceeding.);
In re EPIC Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41, 56 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). A trial court
abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or, stated differently,
when it acts without reference to guiding rules and principles. See In re Colonial Pipeline Co.,
968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). When a trial court fails “to analyze or
apply the law correctly,” it has clearly abused its discretion. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
840 (Tex. 1992). “The trial court has no discretion in determining the law or applying the law to
the facts.” In re Sherwin-Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d 368, 370 (Tex. 2023).
Generally, a relator has no adequate remedy by appeal in a discovery context when: (1)
the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court’s discovery error; (2) the party’s
ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated or severely compromised by the erroneous
discovery ruling to the extent that the party is effectively denied the ability to develop the merits
of its case; or (3) the trial court’s discovery order disallows discovery which cannot be made a
part of the appellate record, thereby denying the appellate court’s ability to evaluate the effect of
the trial court’s error. See In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d at 941 (Tex. 1998). If a
reviewing court concludes that a trial court’s discovery order is overbroad (and therefore the trial
court has abused its discretion), the order must be vacated if there is no adequate remedy on

3
The transcript of the hearing is not before this Court.

3
appeal. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). Where a
discovery order compels production of “patently irrelevant or duplicative documents,” there is no
adequate remedy by appeal because the order “imposes a burden on the producing party far out
of proportion to any benefit that may obtain to the requesting party.” Id. (citing Walker, 827
S.W.2d at 843). Litigants have an interest in protecting their rights by not producing information
that exceeds the permissible bounds of discovery under the applicable procedural rules and once
a party has turned over information not relevant to a case, the trial court’s error cannot be cured
on appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding); In re Mem’l Hermann Health Sys., 607 S.W.3d 913, 921 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).

MOTION TO COMPEL
Relators contend that Respondent abused his discretion by granting RPI’s motion to
compel, implicitly overruling all their objections to the interrogatories and requests for
production of documents.
Applicable Law
A trial court generally has discretion to determine the scope of discovery, but this
discretion is not unlimited. In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 532 S.W.3d 794, 802 (Tex. 2017) (orig.
proceeding). “Our procedural rules define the general scope of discovery as any unprivileged
information that is relevant to the subject of the action, even if it would be inadmissible at trial,
as long as the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Information is relevant if it tends to
make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less
probable than it would be without the information. TEX. R. EVID. 401. The phrase “relevant to
the subject matter” is to be broadly construed; however, the party seeking the discovery may not
engage in a “fishing expedition.” In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Mem’l Hermann Health Sys., 607 S.W.3d at 918.
Discovery undertaken with the purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of an issue
already raised by the pleadings, would constitute an impermissible fishing expedition. In re
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 617 S.W.3d 635, 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

4
orig. proceeding). Discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters
relevant to the case. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion if it orders discovery that exceeds
what the rules of civil procedure permit. In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd., 559
S.W.3d 128, 130-31 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding).
Generally, the party resisting discovery has the burden to plead and prove the basis of its
objection. In re GreCon, Inc., 542 S.W.3d 774, 780 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018,
orig. proceeding). A party objecting or asserting a privilege must present any evidence necessary
to support the objection or privilege. In re United Fire Lloyds, 578 S.W.3d 572, 580–81 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2019, no pet.). However, if the wording of the discovery requests themselves
demonstrates overbreadth or irrelevance as a matter of law, supporting evidence may not be
necessary. 4 In re CAR Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 02-20-00157-CV, 2020 WL 4213839, at *4 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth July 23, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Mem’l Hermann
Healthcare Sys., 274 S.W.3d 195, 202 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig.
proceeding). Overbroad requests include those encompassing time periods, products, or
activities beyond those at issue in the case—in other words, matters of questionable relevancy to
the case at hand. In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 180 n.1 (Tex. 1999). “Discovery
orders requiring document production from an unreasonably long time period or from distant and
unrelated locales are impermissibly overbroad.” In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152. A central
consideration in determining overbreadth is whether discovery requests could have been more
narrowly tailored. Id. at 153.
The Challenged Discovery
Relators challenge the following interrogatories:

INTERROGATORY 1: Please identify the names and last known contact information for all
employees and/or contract workers or any of the Redman Defendants that cared for any disabled,
handicapped, or special needs individuals at any time from Jan.1, 2010 to the present. For each
individual please identify their title, location where they worked, the timeframe they worked (date
of hire to end date), and whether or not they are still presently employed in any capacity with any
of the Redman Defendants.

INTERROGATORY 2: Please identify the names and last known contact information for all
employees and/or contract workers who supervised any of the caregivers of the Redman

4
Absent supporting evidence, however, an appellate court is limited to reviewing only the words of the
discovery requests themselves to determine their overbreadth. In re Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., 274 S.W.3d
195, 202 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).

5
Defendants that cared for any disabled, handicapped, or special needs individuals at any time from
Jan.1, 2010 to the present. For each individual please identify their title, location where they
worked, the timeframe they worked (date of hire to end date), and whether or not they are still
presently employed in any capacity with any of the Redman Defendants.

INTERROGATORY 3: Please identify the names and last known contact information for all
employees and/ or contract workers who trained any of the caregivers of the Redman Defendants
that cared for any disabled, handicapped, or special needs individuals at any time from Jan.1, 2010
to the present. For each individual please identify their title, location where they worked, the
timeframe they worked (date of hire to end date), and whether or not they are still presently
employed in any capacity with any of the Redman Defendants.

INTERROGATORY 4: Please identify the names and last known contact information for all
employees and/or contract workers who hired, fired, and/or had authority to employ any of the
caregivers of the Redman Defendants that cared for any disabled, handicapped, or special needs
individuals at any time from Jan.1, 2010 to the present. For each individual please identify their
title, location where they worked, the timeframe they worked (date of hire to end date), and
whether or not they are still presently employed in any capacity with any of the Redman
Defendants.

INTERROGATORY 5: Please identify the names and last known contact information for all
individuals who had vice principal authority over any of the caregivers of the Redman Defendants
that cared for any disabled, handicapped, or special needs individuals at any time from Jan.1, 2010
to the present. For each individual please identify their title, location where they worked, the
timeframe they worked (date of hire to end date), and whether or not they are still presently a vice
principal or are employed in any capacity with any of the Redman Defendants.

They further challenge production requests seeking documents regarding:

1. addresses and location information of all properties owned and/or controlled, in part whole or in
part [sic], by any of the Redman Defendants where any care is provided for disabled, handicapped,
or special needs individuals at any time from Jan.1, 2010 to the present.
2. addresses and location information of all properties owned and/or controlled, in part whole or in
part [sic], by any of the Redman Defendants where any disabled, handicapped, or special needs
individual [sic] were receiving any renumeration, funding, payment, and/or benefits for care from
any state or federal government entity from January 1, 2010 to the present.
3. all money or other types of federal/state government funding or benefits which any of the
Redman Defendants received as compensation for patient care, or otherwise received directly or
indirectly through the individuals being cared for, from Jan. 1, 2010 to the present.
4. names and contact information of all entities that provided any accounting services for each of
the Redman Defendants from Jan.1, 2010 to present.
5. all transfers of money and/or assets larger than $1000.00 per transaction between any of the
Redman Defendants from Jan. 1, 2010 to present.
5. all transfers of money and/or assets larger than $1000.00 per transaction from any of the
Redman Defendants to any other entity owned and/or controlled and/or set up for the benefit of
any of the Redman Defendants from Jan. 1, 2010 to present [this request appears to be erroneously
numbered “5”].
6. names and last known contact information for all employees and/or contract workers or any of
the Redman Defendants that cared for any disabled, handicapped, or special needs individuals at
any time from Jan.1, 2010 to the present, limited to those that worked at the properties listed in
section 4.1(F) in Plaintiffs live petition.

6
7. training, licensing, and/or certifications the Redman Defendants required of its employees
and/or contractors to have related to caring for any disabled, handicapped, or special needs
individuals at any time from Jan.1, 2010 to the present.
…
9. all incident reports, police reports, lawsuits, investigations, and/or formal complaints which
have been made since January 1, 2010 to the present, involving any of the Redman Defendants
alleging any resident/patient abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and/or mishandling of any patient at
any of Defendants properties.
10. all other complaints which have been made since January 1, 2010 to the present, involving any
of the Redman Defendants or their vice principals, supervisors, employees, contractors, or
caregivers alleging any kind of resident/patient abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and/or mishandling
of any patient at any of Defendants properties.

…
13. the employment file for every caregiver, every supervisor, and every case manager for any of
the Redman Defendants that ever provided care, supervision, or management over Devon.
14. all notes, memos, and correspondence between you and your insurer (both primary insurer and
umbrella insurers) relating to the incident in question or the insurance coverage that is in your
possession constructive or actual.
15. all employee handbooks, policy and procedure manuals, or any other policy or training
material, that outline or relate to any Redman Defendant's policies, procedures, and/or training
related to customer/patient care, abuse training, employee supervision, employee training, hiring,
and maintenance/operation of the residential facilities owned and/or operated by Defendants from
January 1, 2010 to present.
…
17. citations and/or deficiencies identified at Defendants’ properties by any governmental agency
since January 1, 2010.
18. all photographs, pictures, motion pictures, movies, films, or photographic material of any kind
concerning, relating to, or depicting any incident where Devon was injured, the residence at issue,
or the events surrounding and related to any incident where Devon was injured between January 1,
2010 and the present, or those collected pursuant to an incident report, investigation, or
government inquiry.
…
22. all contracts between the Redman Defendants and any other Redman Defendant related to the
properties alleged in Plaintiff's live petition.
23. all contracts between the Redman Defendants and any other Redman Defendant related to the
care or housing of customers/patients.
24. all contracts between the Redman Defendants and any other entity or individual related to the
care of customers/patients.
25. all contracts between the Redman Defendants and any other Redman Defendant related to the
management of customers/ patients.
26. all contracts between the Redman Defendants and any other Redman Defendant related to any
services provided directly or indirectly for the care of customers/patients.
27. all contracts between the Redman Defendants and any government entity related directly or
indirectly to the care of customers/ patients or the properties they are in.

7
Requests for Financial Information
Relators argue that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling them to respond
fully to RPI’s Request for Production numbers 4, 5, 5, and 29 because the requests are overbroad
and seek irrelevant financial information from Relators and unrelated entities. 5 The disputed
requests for production inquire about (1) names and contact information for all entities that
provided any accounting services for any of the Relators from January 1, 2010, to present; (2) all
transfers of money and/or assets larger than $1,000.00 per transaction between any of the
Relators from January 1, 2010, to present; (3) all transfers of money and/or assets larger than
$1,000.00 per transaction between any of the Relators and any entity “owned and/or controlled
and/or set up for the benefit of” the Relators from January 1, 2010, to present; and (4) all
agreements or contracts relating to any transfer of assets among or between any of the Relators
from January 1, 2010, to present.
These discovery requests are overly broad as written and not reasonably tailored to
include only matters relevant to the case, such that they constitute an impermissible fishing
expedition. See In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d at 713. While some discovery of the
financial links between Relators may be appropriate considering RPI’s alter ego allegations,
these requests are not limited in topical scope and cover an unreasonably long period of time.
See Kern v. Gleason, 840 S.W.2d 730, 737 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1992, no pet.). The requests
call for production of extremely expansive financial information for a period of over ten years,
while Devon only resided at David House from 2016 to 2020. Further, the requests are not
limited in scope as to subject matter and appear likely to capture a vast number of transactions
unrelated to the causes of action alleged in the underlying lawsuit related to personal injuries
suffered by Devon. For these reasons, we conclude that Request for Production numbers 4, 5, 5,
and 29 are overbroad as a matter of law.
Overbroad Requests
Relators contend that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling them to respond
completely to Interrogatory numbers 1 through 5 and Request for Production numbers 1 through
7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 22 through 29 because each request is overbroad. Again, absent
evidence supporting Relators’ overbreadth and irrelevance objections, we are limited to

5
There are two consecutive Requests for Production numbered “5.”

8
examining only the words of the discovery requests in our review. 6 In re Mem’l Hermann
Healthcare Sys., 274 S.W.3d at 202.
Similar to those discussed infra, the majority of the discovery requests to which Relators
object on grounds of overbreadth encompass time periods, locations, or activities beyond those at
issue in this case, and could have been much more narrowly tailored to include only matters
relevant to the underlying causes of action (all stemming from personal injuries suffered by
Devon during his residence at David House). See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d at
180 n.1; In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153. From their wording alone, Interrogatories 1
through 5 and Requests for Production 1 through 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 28, and 29 are not sufficiently
limited in time, again calling for the production of a great expanse of information spanning more
than a decade (from January 1, 2010 to present) and encompassing documents outside the time in
which Devon stayed at David House. Production Requests 22 through 27 contain no limitation
on temporal scope whatsoever. Additionally, Interrogatories 1 through 5 and Requests for
Production 1 through 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 22 through 29 are not sufficiently limited as to subject
matter, calling for the production of evidence wholly unrelated to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, Interrogatories 1 through 5 and Production Requests 1 through 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and
22 through 29 are overbroad as a matter of law.
Request for Production 13 asks Relators to produce employment files for every caregiver,
supervisor, and case manager who provided care, supervision, or case management services
related to Devon. This request is inherently limited in time because Devon was a resident at
David House from 2016 to 2020 and is limited in scope to only those employees who directly
rendered services to him. However, Relators contend that employment files for employees who
are not alleged to have personally abused Devon are irrelevant, making the request overly broad.
Although some documents contained in the employment files of employees who rendered
services to Devon are likely relevant to the alleged instances of abuse, whether Relators rendered
services in a negligent fashion, and whether Relators knew or should have known about the
presence of abusive caregivers at David House, it seems equally apparent that the files likely

6
As an initial matter, we note that Relators argue that incidents of alleged neglect by caretakers should be
excluded from discovery, but they did not present this argument in the trial court. It is well established that
arguments not presented to the trial court will not be considered in a petition for writ of mandamus; as such, we do
not consider Relators’ contentions on this point. In re Advance Payroll Funding, Ltd., 254 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1998) (orig.
proceeding).

9
include documents of no relevance to the underlying causes of action in this matter. See In re
Mobil Oil Corp., No. 09-06-392 CV, 2006 WL 3028063, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 26,
2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“There is nothing about the location of a document in the
personnel file that necessarily makes it relevant to the pending action.”). We conclude that
Request 13 could have been more narrowly tailored to exclude irrelevant information and is
therefore overbroad as a matter of law. See In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153.
Request for Production 18 asks Relators to produce photographs and videos relating to or
depicting any incident wherein Devon was injured and the surrounding events, or depicting “the
residence at issue” from January 10, 2010, to present. This request further seeks production of
photographs and videos “collected pursuant to an incident report, investigation, or government
inquiry.” The portion of the request regarding incidents of injury to Devon is appropriately
limited to relevant subject matter and inherently limited in time because he was only resident at
David House for a certain period. However, the remainder is not sufficiently limited as to time or
subject matter, because it appears to seek all photographs and videos depicting David House for
a period of more than ten years, as well as any photographs or videos collected in relation to any
incident report, investigation, or government inquiry of any kind without any limitation as to
time, location, or subject matter. See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d at 180 n.1.
Therefore, Request 18 is overbroad as a matter of law.
Requests for Confidential Patient Information
Relators argue that Respondent abused his discretion in compelling them to respond fully
to Requests for Production 3, 9, and 10 because these requests seek the production of documents
which would include protected health information about patients other than Devon.
A mandamus petition must contain clear and concise arguments for the contentions made,
with appropriate citations to authorities and the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h).
Fulfilling this duty entails more than proffering mere conclusions; a relator must provide
substantive legal analysis supporting the arguments and conclusions. In re Fitzgerald, 429
S.W.3d at 897. In their mandamus petition, Relators do not cite to any statutory or jurisprudential
authority as the basis for this objection, nor do they present any substantive analysis on this
issue. Relators’ failure to fulfill their duty under Rule 52.3(h) results in waiver of their complaint
on this point regarding Requests for Production 3, 9, and 10. See In re Aethon Energy
Operating, LLC, No. 12-21-00202-CV, 2022 WL 242902, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 26,

10
2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (declining to address challenge to production requests where
argument consisted of mere conclusions without substantive discussion of legal principles or
controlling authority).
Work Product Privilege
Relators contend that Respondent abused his discretion in compelling them to respond
fully to RPI’s Request for Production 14, because “notes, memos, and correspondence” between
Relators and their insurers related to the abuse of Devon “are protected by the work product
privilege.” Relators’ failure to introduce evidence, cite authority, or provide any legal analysis
precludes their entitlement to extraordinary relief.
The mere listing of a specific privilege in a discovery response does not prove that
privilege. In re Park Cities Bank, 409 S.W.3d 859, 868 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, orig.
proceeding). Rather, “[t]he party resisting discovery bears the burden of proving any applicable
privilege.” In re Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 617 S.W.3d at 657 (citing Huie v. DeShazo, 922
S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. 1996)). This means that a party should provide evidence to the trial court
in the form of affidavits or testimony to establish the claimed privilege. Id. (citing Salazar v.
Coastal Corp., 928 S.W.2d 162, 172 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ)). Despite
this burden, nothing in the record reveals Relators provided even a scintilla of evidence to
support invocation of the work product privilege. Relators’ petition cites Rule 192.5(a)(2) as the
basis for their claim of privilege, which provides that work product comprises communications
made in anticipation of litigation between a party and the party’s representatives, including
insurers. TEX. R. CIV. P. 195(a)(2). However, the record contains no evidence tending to prove
that the documents at issue were in fact such communications, and therefore, Relators did not
meet their burden to prove the privilege they claim applies here. See Salazar, 928 S.W.2d at 172
(“It is an abuse of discretion to deny discovery when no proof of the privilege is provided.”).
Moreover, outside of the citation to Rule 192.5(a)(2), Relators again cite no authority and
provide no substantive legal analysis to support their conclusion that the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering them to respond fully to Request for Production 14. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(h); In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d at 897. Their failure to do so results in waiver of their
complaint regarding Request 14.

11
Summation
Interrogatories. 1 through 5 and Requests for Production 1 through 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17,
18, and 22 through 29 are all overbroad as a matter of law because they lack reasonable
limitations as to time, geography, and subject matter, and Respondent therefore abused his
discretion in ordering Relators to respond thereto without limitation. Because Respondent’s
order exceeds the bounds of discovery permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure and compels
production of irrelevant information, Relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

DISPOSITION

Having concluded that Respondent abused his discretion by granting RPI’s motion to
compel with respect to Interrogatories 1 through 5 and Requests for Production 1 through 7, 9,
10, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 22 through 29, without temporal and subject matter limitations, we
conditionally grant in part Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We direct Respondent to
vacate that portion of the July 20, 2023, order compelling responses to Interrogatories 1 through
5 and Requests for Production 1 through 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 22 through 29, and in its
stead, to issue an order imposing limits on these requests and compelling Relators to respond to
the discovery requests as limited. Relators’ petition is denied in all other respects. We lift our
stay of August 31, 2023.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered October 11, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

12
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORDER

OCTOBER 11, 2023

NO. 12-23-00212-CV

LAURA LEE REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, RICHARD REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY,
BRIAN G. REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, KRISTY L. REDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY,
COMMUNITY ACCESS, INC., REDMAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND REDMAN
LEGACY, LP,
Relators
V.
HON. JUDGE AUSTIN R. JACKSON,
Respondent

Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21-2535-B)

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Laura Lee
Redman, individually, Richard Redman, individually, Brian G. Redman, individually, Kristy L.
Redman, individually, Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman
Legacy, LP; who are the relators in appellate cause number 12-23-00212-CV and the defendants
in trial court cause number 21-2535-B, pending on the docket of the 114th Judicial District Court
of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on August
21, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that
the petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, conditionally granted in part.
And because it is further the opinion of this Court that the trial judge will act promptly
and vacate only that portion of the July 20, 2023, order compelling responses to Real Party in
Interest Kenny S. Frederick’s Interrogatories 1 through 5 and Requests for Production 1 through
7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 22 through 29, and in its stead, to issue an order imposing limits on
these requests and compelling Relators to respond to the discovery requests as limited; the writ
will not issue unless the HONORABLE AUSTIN R. JACKSON fails to comply with this
Court’s order within ten (10) days from the date of this order. The petition is denied in all other
respects.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.