HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals has denied a petition challenging an order granting the 3M Company’s request to take pre-suit depositions and to obtain documents from attorney Michael Martin and the Martin Walton Law Firm.
Court records show a trial court granted the request on June 2, 2023, leading Martin and his firm to appeal. The First Court stayed the action and on April 16 denied petition for writ of mandamus, lifting the stay.
Justices found that Martin and the firm’s “mandamus petition reflects” that they “have failed to establish that they are entitled to mandamus relief.”
Michael Martin
| Martin Walton Law Firm
Court records show 3M Company filed a 202 petition to conduct the pre-suit deposition of Martin and a corporate representative of the firm to investigate a potential claim or suit against them based on their representation of dust mask plaintiffs (coal miners) in litigation against 3M in Kentucky.
On appeal, Martin and the firm questioned whether the trial court erred by failing to apply the affirmative defense of attorney immunity, and whether 3M satisfied their burden to take pre-suit discovery with competent evidence.
"The overbroad and unlimited scope of 3M’s request for depositions and documents constitutes nothing more than a harassing fishing expedition to obtain privileged 20 communications and documents from Martin regarding his client’s or former client’s claims against 3M and said conduct by 3M should be prohibited," the firm's petition states.
In its response brief, 3M Company asserted that it has developed evidence that it has been the target of a “fraudulent scheme” designed to build up a large inventory of purported claims, drive up costs, and compel larger payouts for “the personal benefit of Martin and other co-conspirators.”
“The evidence submitted below shows that many of the claims were known to be frivolous when filed and that those involved in the scheme made several misrepresentations in and out of court, may have coached witnesses to lie, gave or elicited false testimony, and took actions to conceal their fraudulent scheme,” the brief states.
“As 3M’s request was squarely within the expressed purpose of Rule 202 and the evidence below shows that the likely benefit of allowing the depositions outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure, the district court properly granted 3M’s Rule 202 petition.”
The law firm of Winston & Strawn represents 3M.
The firm is represented by Miller, Scamardi & Carrabba.
Appeals case No. 01-23-00483-CV