noting 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”
How later courts described this case
- noting 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”
- in order to increase likelihood of disclosure of all relevant matters, permissible scope of discovery includes “anything reasonably calculated to lead to material evidence;” but overly broad requests, harassment, or disclosure of privileged information exceed that scope
- holding that court’s order controls over stated reasons or oral qualifications
- "Because the evidence exempted from discovery would not appear in the record, the appellate courts would find it impossible to determine whether denying the discovery was harmful."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (1992)
673 S.W.2d 569, 574 (Tex. 1984), disapproved of on other grounds by Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842
The opinion
SPEARS, Justice.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Jampole expresses concern that the court’s opinion is unclear as to whether he is entitled to certain documents sought but for which mandamus does not lie. The documents are those relating to GMC’s efforts and plans to comply with proposed federal motor vehicle safety standards known as GSA 515/26 and FMVSS 301, and those relating to experimental, prototype, and pre-production crash testing. We view all of the requested documents as discoverable; however, we need not mandamus the trial court to order discovery of those items which have not been specifically denied.
Jampole is entitled to these documents. We expect that the trial court will order full discovery in accordance with our opinion; therefore, we overrule Jampole’s motion for rehearing. GMC’s motion is likewise overruled.