in Re Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. ( 2013 )

Opinion issued August 6, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-01012-CV
———————————
IN RE WALTER KIDDE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT, INC., Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Trial Court Case No. 64729
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc.,
challenges orders in which the trial court limited discovery of records of child
protective services investigations, and disallowed the deposition of a government
witness. Kidde, a manufacturer of home smoke alarms, is a defendant in a
products liability suit arising out of a tragic fire in which three children died, and
others sustained injury. Before the fire occurred, the Brazoria County branch of
the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) had investigated
allegations of parental abuse and neglect involving the children, and it conducted a
further investigation in its aftermath.
TDFPS produced some records associated with its investigations, but
redacted others, on the basis that the redacted materials were protected from
discovery by statute. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 261.201 (West Supp. 2012). It
also moved to quash the deposition of its investigator. Kidde seeks mandamus
relief from two discovery rulings upholding TDFPS’s position. In the first, the
trial court quashed Kidde’s notice to depose Eric Holmes, the TDFPS investigator
who interviewed the plaintiffs on the morning of the fire. In the second, the trial
court denied Kidde’s request for disclosure of the additional, redacted information
from the TDFPS records, which TDFPS has withheld from discovery. We grant
relief in part and deny it in part.1
1
The underlying case is Brandon Moore, Connie Moore, & Jacquelyn Homes, and
Daniel and Dana Novak, Individually and as Joint Representatives of the Estates
of Kaitlyn Novak (Deceased), Christian Novak, and Nathaniel Novak and as Next
Friend of Nicholas Novak (a minor), Robert Kennedy and Alan Andrew
Cummings, Intervenors v. Bell Partners, Inc., Gabriella Mendoza and Marissa
Montalva, G&I VI Skylar Point, L.P. d/b/a Skylar Point Apartments, and Walter
Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc., Defendants, No. 64729; from the 23rd District
Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable Ben Hardin presiding.
2
Background
The underlying claims for wrongful death, personal injury, and deceptive
trade practices arise out of a two-story apartment fire that occurred in November
2010. The fire caused the death of three children then living at the apartment with
their mother. One child survived the fire. Their parents, Dana and Daniel Novak,
individually and as representatives of their children’s estates and their surviving
child—sued Kidde, among other defendants. The suit also names, as intervening
plaintiffs, Robert Kennedy and Alan Cummings, who also resided in the apartment
when the fire occurred. In addition to the other claims, Daniel brings a loss of
consortium claim arising from his children’s deaths. Dana Novak later nonsuited
her claims against Kidde.
The plaintiffs allege that the Kidde smoke alarms failed to timely sound in
response to the fire due to a defect in their design. Specifically, the plaintiffs
allege that the smoke alarm installed on the first floor of the apartment sounded
only after thick smoke caused the occupants to awaken, and that the second floor
alarm, if it sounded at all, did not sound soon enough to allow the upstairs
occupants to escape the apartment. According to the pleadings, the Kidde alarms
use an ionization system to trigger the alarm. The plaintiffs’ expert, relying on the
3
apartment occupants’ deposition testimony to conclude that the alarm sounded
untimely, opines that if photoelectric smoke alarms or combination of
ionization/photoelectric smoke alarms had been installed in the same location, then
those types of alarms would have sounded earlier in response to the fire, and would
have permitted all of the apartment’s occupants to escape without serious harm.
Initially, Daniel Novak requested that TDFPS produce its records. In
response, TDFPS provided Daniel’s counsel with a redacted copy of its
investigation records. Caseworker Eric Holmes, the TDFPS investigator assigned
to the file, also executed a deposition on written questions, confirming that the
records were public business records as defined under Texas Rule of Evidence 803.
Plaintiffs’ counsel produced the 74 pages of redacted records, accompanied by the
business record affidavit, to Kidde in response to Kidde’s discovery requests.
The final investigation, conducted by Holmes over the few days following
the fire, concerned the circumstances surrounding the fire and its origins. The
produced records contain Holmes’s notes from his interviews with the apartment
occupants and with Daniel. Kidde contends that some deposition testimony in this
case arguably is not consistent with some information contained in the records that
TDFPS produced. It points out, for example:
4
Witness TDFPS records Deposition testimony
Andrew Cummings Said that he passed the Said that the surviving child
surviving child going came downstairs sometime
downstairs while he was before fire started.
going up to help others.
Stated “Robert Kennedy Testified that “at some point
heard the fire alarm going after we had already been
off downstairs; it woke himawake, the smoke detector
up.” downstairs had finally gone
off, after we were already
Robert Kennedy arrived and awake.”
cut short the interview.
Denied speaking with
Holmes; does not recall
speaking with anyone from
TDFPS
Daniel Novak Reported to Holmes that Denied telling Holmes that
“the downstairs [of the the apartment’s second floor
apartment] is fine, but the was “rough”; says that
upstairs is rough” and that apartment was “fair” or
Dana had kept six large “normal for a kid’s room,”
propane tanks there. and denied that Dana had
kept propane tanks there.
The plaintiffs designated Dr. Don B. Russell as their expert on the
performance of the Kidde smoke alarms installed in the apartment. Russell opines
that the smoke alarms would have sounded timely if they had given the
apartment’s occupants “two or three minutes of escape time and time to react,” but
his review of the facts indicates that the alarms did not. Russell bases his opinion
on the occupants’ deposition testimony that they did not hear either of the smoke
5
detectors before smoke had filled the apartment. Id. In particular, he concludes
that the downstairs alarm did not sound in a timely manner.
Dana and Daniel had separated before the fire occurred, so Daniel did not
reside at the apartment. The incidents before the fire addressed in the TDFPS
records concern Daniel’s interactions with his children and reports of physical
abuse. Dana’s divorce pleadings also contain allegations of mistreatment and a
request to terminate Daniel’s parental rights. In the divorce proceeding, Daniel
agreed to a temporary restraining order that governed his contact with Dana, but in
his deposition, Daniel denied the allegations in Dana’s affidavit supporting her
motion for the TRO. Daniel’s testimony about the conditions at Dana’s apartment
conflict with Holmes’s post-fire interview notes of his interview with Daniel. In
denying that he made the statements that Holmes recorded, Daniel attacked
Holmes’s motivation and veracity, remarking that “I think this Eric Holmes guy
was pretty much trying to dig something that he didn’t have. . . . I can’t recall
saying the stuff that he’s writing down there.”
Kidde sought to depose Holmes to verify the events recorded in his notes,
establish his experience and expertise as a TDFPS investigator, and discover
additional facts relating to the investigations recorded in TDFPS files. TDFPS
6
tendered unredacted versions of the records to the trial court for its consideration in
support of its motion to quash further discovery of them.
Discussion
I. Standard for Mandamus Review
Mandamus will issue to correct a discovery order if the order constitutes a
clear abuse of discretion, and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex.1998); see also In re Maurer, 15
S.W.3d 256, 259 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding).
The rules of civil procedure define the general scope of discovery as any
relevant, unprivileged information—even if inadmissible at trial—that “appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See TEX.
R. CIV. P. 192.3(a); In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). To
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying discovery, we
review the entire record, mindful that “the ultimate purpose of discovery is to seek
the truth, so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what
facts are concealed.” Colonial Pipeline, 968 S.W.2d at 941. Erroneous denial of
relevant discovery going to the heart of a party’s case compromises a party’s
ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial, rendering the appellate remedy
inadequate. Able v. Moyé, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995); see Walker v.
7
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992) (“[A]n appeal will not be an adequate
remedy where the party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial is
vitiated or severely compromised by the trial court’s discovery error.”).
II. Confidentiality of TDFPS Records
Section 261.201 of the Texas Family Code declares that the following
information is confidential and not subject to public release:
1) a report of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect made under this
chapter and the identity of the person making the report; and
2) except as otherwise provided in this section, the files, reports,
records, communications, audiotapes, videotapes, and working
papers used or developed in an investigation under this chapter or
in providing services as a result of an investigation.
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 261.201(a). Subsection (b) of 261.201 contains an
exception to nondisclosure. In re Fulgium, 150 S.W.3d 252, 253 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2004, orig. proceeding). A trial court may, in its discretion, order
disclosure of the information made confidential by the statute if:
after hearing and an in camera review of the requested information,
the court determines that the disclosure of the requested information
is: (A) essential to the administration of justice; and (B) not likely to
endanger the life or safety of: (i) a child who is the subject of the
report of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect; (ii) a person who
makes a report of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect; or (iii) any
other person who participates in an investigation of reported abuse or
neglect or who provides care for the child.
8
TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 261.201(b). The parties dispute whether the trial court
acted within its discretion in denying Kidde’s motion for their disclosure under the
exception in subsection (b).
Relatively few appellate cases have involved the interpretation of
subsection (b). In one case, the Texarkana Court of Appeals concluded that the
disclosure of confidential information pursuant to section 261.201(b) was
“essential to the administration of justice” in a medical malpractice case, in which
the information was relevant to whether an infant’s brain damage was caused
solely by the hospital’s alleged negligence or in part by the failure to obtain proper
pre-natal and post-natal care for the infant, which the TDFPS records documented.
In re Agers, No. 06-10-00020-CV, 2010 WL 1780133, at *3 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana May 5, 2010, orig. proceeding).
In another case, analyzing the necessity for disclosure of confidential
information under a comparable exception for adult protective services (APS)
records, the El Paso Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief and ordered
disclosure of the records, after determining that they were relevant to the issues in
a will contest in which the decedent’s only daughter had, for the most part, been
cut out of her father’s will. In re Chesses, 388 S.W.3d 330, 340 (Tex. App.—El
Paso May 2012, orig. proceeding) (addressing claim for disclosure under TEX.
9
HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 48.101(c)). The daughter testified that an APS specialist
had informed her that her father had complained that his attorney was pressuring
him to leave the bulk of his estate to certain charities before his death, that her
investigation had uncovered suspicious behavior by the attorney, and that the
father had told the specialist that he really wanted his daughter to get everything.
Id. at 332. The appellate court held that the APS documents and the specialist’s
deposition were essential to the administration of justice, and thus, the trial court
had abused its discretion in denying the discovery. Id. at 340, 343.
III. Analysis
Kidde seeks Holmes’s deposition and the unredacted TDFPS records for two
purposes: (1) to question Holmes about his post-fire investigation and interviews;
and (2) to question him about the records concerning reports that Daniel abused his
deceased children and investigations into those allegations. We consider each issue
in turn.
A. Proposed discovery
1. Post-fire investigation
Novak, Kennedy, and Cummings base their DTPA and products liability
claims against Kidde on allegations that “the design, manufacture, and marketing
of the [Kidde] smoke alarms . . . w[ere] defective such that they failed to provide a
10
timely warning to the occupants of the apartment.” They specifically allege that
Kennedy “awoke to the strong smell of smoke,” and that “[w]hen he awoke, no
smoke detector was sounding.” The plaintiffs claim that the alarms’ failure to
timely sound was a producing and proximate cause of their injuries and the
children’s death, because smoked had filled the apartment before the occupants
discovered the fire and prevented their safe escape.
Under the TDFPS Policy Manual, the report of a child’s death triggers a
TDFPS investigation when “there is an indication that abuse or neglect may have
caused the death; or . . . the cause of death is not yet determined or has not been
clearly attributed to accidental or natural causes.” TDFPS STATEWIDE INTAKE
POLICY & PROC. § 4421 (Jan. 2011). Holmes’s investigation records document his
interviews with Daniel, Dana, and two more of the apartment’s occupants
concerning the circumstances that resulted in the children’s deaths. Holmes’s
interviews directly involve the same persons and events under consideration in this
suit. His investigation notes show that Holmes’s testimony could be relevant to the
question of when, if ever, either of the two smoke alarms sounded. Daniel’s
observations to Holmes about the apartment’s condition at the time the fire
occurred are relevant, because Kidde reasonably could present evidence that
obstructions or highly flammable materials also contributed to the occupants’
11
inability to safely escape the fire. Barring Kidde from deposing Holmes about his
post-fire interviews with the occupants deprives it from discovery that reasonably
could lead to evidence undermining the credibility of plaintiffs’ allegations that
Kidde’s alarm failed to properly function, or that an alarm malfunction contributed
to the injuries and deaths that occurred. We hold that the information Kidde seeks
through Holmes’s deposition is essential to the administration of justice, because
Kidde seeks information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence on issues directly involving the parties and events in dispute.
See Agers, 2010 WL 1780133 at *3; Chesses, 388 S.W.3d at 340. Any fire-related
investigation records, to the extent they have not already been produced in
unredacted form, are similarly essential. See id. Specifically, pages 1 through 5 of
case number XXXXXX12 can be produced with more selective redaction to
provide investigative information to Kidde while still withholding sensitive
identifying information.
2. Redacted materials from other TDFPS investigations
Kidde also seeks the complete unredacted TDFPS files from other TDFPS
investigations for the purpose of countering Daniel’s loss of consortium claim. A
claim for loss of consortium aims to compensate individuals for the “positive
benefits flowing from the love, comfort, companionship, and society that the
12
beneficiary would have experienced had the decedent lived.” Thomas v. Uzoka,
290 S.W.3d 437, 455–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)
(citing Moore v. Lillebo, 722 S.W.2d 683, 687–88 (Tex. 1986)); see Sanchez v.
Schindler, 651 S.W.2d 249, 251, 253 (Tex. 1983) (recognizing that parents may
recover damages for loss of “love, advice, comfort, companionship and society”
resulting from child’s wrongful death). Kidde contends that discovery into
allegations of abuse and neglect could lead to evidence relevant to a jury’s
determination of the amount Daniel should receive in damages for loss of his
children’s companionship and society. The investigative records that TDFPS
already has produced yield this sort of information. A review of the tendered in
camera records shows that the redactions contain additional information about the
allegations that initiated the TDFPS investigations, but producing the records in
their unredacted form would divulge the people who had made complaints to
TDFPS, people to whom the statute particularly affords protection from disclosure.
The redactions to the records involving the investigations before the fire
meet the statute’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of persons who report
child abuse or neglect, and the intake information documented to have been
conveyed by those persons. Dana’s divorce pleadings and the affidavit supporting
her motion for TRO state that Daniel mistreated the children and allege grounds for
13
termination of his parental rights. The trial court reasonably could have concluded
that material relating to Daniel’s relationship with his children is already available
to Kidde from non-protected sources and in the records that the TDFPS has
produced, without need for the redacted matters. In balancing the interests of the
statute and the exception, and in light of the information that TDFPS produced to
the parties, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that
Kidde failed to show that production of the redactions to the records of TDFPS
investigations conducted before the fire is essential to the administration of justice.
B. Endangerment
With respect to the second prong of the disclosure inquiry, Kidde must
demonstrate that disclosure of the confidential information it seeks would not be
likely to endanger the life or safety of a child who is the subject of a report of
suspected abuse or neglect, the person who makes a report, or any participant in
the investigation of a report. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 261.201(b). Kaitlyn and
Christian, the children who were the subject of the reported abuse, are deceased.
Daniel and Dana, who have lodged complaints of abuse and neglect against each
other, downplayed those allegations in this suit. The parties have most of the
TDFPS records, and the neither the plaintiffs nor the TDFPS contend that further
14
disclosure would endanger anyone’s life or safety in this case. We hold that Kidde
satisfied the second prong with respect to the discovery it seeks.
Conclusion
We conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to
vacate its order quashing the deposition of Eric Holmes. We deny mandamus
relief relating to Kidde’s request for production of the TDFPS records in
unredacted form, except with respect to the records that pertain to the fire
investigation. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this
opinion.
Jane Bland
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
15