Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Lorrilisa Ramirez sued her employer, Greyhound Lines, and her supervisor for wrongful termination. She claimed she was retaliated against for making a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker. Ramirez filed interrogatories and requests for production on the defendants. Among other things, she asked for information from “the Texas offices for a period of five years prior to [her] termination.” The defendants filed responses and objections, mostly to the scope of the discovery requests. The defendants wanted discovery limited to information related to its San Antonio terminal, where Ramirez worked, the period of time Ramirez worked there, and similarly situated employees. Ramirez filed a motion to compel. The trial court held a hearing and made an oral ruling. The trial court asked Ramirez’s attorney to prepare a final order, but the parties could not agree about the order’s substance. The trial court thus held a second hearing. There, the trial court signed an order, but at the defendants’ urging, indicated that he would sign a supplemental order further limiting the scope of discovery. This, however, was not done. The defendants filed for a writ of mandamus. HOLDING:Writ conditionally granted in part; denied in part. The court confirms that the scope of discovery changes with each type of employment claim. For instance, in a claim for individual acts of discrimination, a plaintiff is only entitled to information related to similarly situated employees. With this in mind, the court agrees that, because Ramirez was not alleging a company-wide policy of discrimination, she was entitled only to information related to similarly situated employees. The court, however, adds that Ramirez should not be limited to information from just the time period when she worked. Because her supervisor’s actions are at issue, she should be able to view records related to his conduct prior to Ramirez’s employment. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by not limiting the scope of Ramirez’s request. It was not an abuse of discretion, though, to allow Ramirez to seek information from all Texas terminals for a period of five years prior to her employment. The court reaches this conclusion in part because the defendants did not initially object. OPINION:Green, J.; Stone, Green and Angelini, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.