# In re Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 26-0295 **In re Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., No. 26-0295, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by compelling a trucking company to produce the hiring, training and evaluation records of two supervisors of its driver in a collision case, where the company has stipulated the driver was in the course and scope of employment?** Practice areas: civil procedure, personal injury ## Key issues - Did the trial court abuse its discretion by compelling a trucking company to produce the hiring, training and evaluation records of two supervisors of its driver in a collision case, where the company has stipulated the driver was in the course and scope of employment? - Does a pleaded gross-negligence claim about training and supervision make those supervisors' personnel files discoverable, or is the request a fishing expedition for "other acts" evidence for which mandamus lies? ## Factual History Daniel Ortega, driving an Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) truck, made a left turn from an uncontrolled driveway onto a street and collided with Christina Solano, who sued ODFL and Ortega for negligence and gross negligence, including claims against ODFL for negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, training, and supervision (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 14, 19). ODFL stipulated that Ortega was in the course and scope of his employment and says he had a spotless driving record for six years before the accident (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 20). The one discovery request left in dispute, Request for Production No. 37, asks for the employment application, job description, offer letter, training records and performance evaluations of the two people ODFL identified as Ortega's supervisors, with redaction of personal information allowed (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 14). Solano says the records bear on how ODFL selected, trained and monitored the supervisors responsible for enforcing the safety policies governing Ortega's conduct, which goes to her gross-negligence claim (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 18). ## Procedural History The trial court granted Solano's motion to compel as to Request No. 37 on September 19, 2025, and denied ODFL's motion to reconsider on November 7, 2025 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 14; Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 17). The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) denied mandamus without calling for a response in a March 18, 2026 memorandum opinion, with Justice Lee dissenting (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 14-15). The Supreme Court stayed the order and set the case for oral argument on June 19, 2026, and on October 2, 2026 it granted a motion to dismiss in part and dismissed the petition while declining to vacate the court of appeals' opinion. ## Issues Presented - ODFL (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 15-19): whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering production of private, irrelevant personnel files of non-party supervisors that are not narrowly tailored to the case. - Solano (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 10-12): whether the single request, tied to her pleaded gross-negligence claims, is a proper discovery request that ODFL cannot defeat by asserting that the claims lack merit. ## Standard(s) of Review Mandamus is available when a trial court compels discovery beyond what the rules allow because there is no adequate appellate remedy, and ODFL argues this is especially so for private material such as personnel files (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 15). Solano says the burden on the party resisting discovery is a heavy one, requiring a ruling so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 18). ## Legal Arguments **Whether the supervisors' files are relevant and narrowly tailored.** **Old Dominion (Relator):** Discovery may not be a fishing expedition and requests must be tailored to matters relevant to the case, and nothing in the supervisors' files goes to whether Ortega made a bad left turn, so whole personnel files, which are classic "other acts" evidence with no similarity, timing or connection requirement, are overbroad (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 16-21). *In re Contract Freighters* and *In re UPS Ground Freight* control because they rejected requests for irrelevant information about uninvolved drivers in a single-driver accident (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 22-23). **Christina Solano (Real Party in Interest):** The single request is tailored to the pleaded claims that ODFL was grossly negligent in training and supervising Ortega, claims the Legislature preserved in Chapter 72 notwithstanding a course-and-scope stipulation, and ODFL never tested those claims by special exceptions, a motion to dismiss or summary judgment (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 11-12). The order is limited to specific documents from the files of two employees ODFL itself identified as involved in Ortega's hiring, training, and supervision (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 17-18, 29). **Whether ODFL preserved and can show an abuse of discretion.** **Christina Solano (Real Party in Interest):** ODFL filed no response to the motion to compel and gave the appellate courts no record of the hearing, which limits the ability to discern an abuse of discretion (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 19-23). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case ODFL argued that this Court has repeatedly held that orders compelling overbroad discovery are reviewable by mandamus, that personnel files are among the most sensitive categories of corporate information, and that the court of appeals' reasoning would authorize discovery into generalized corporate character evidence (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF pp. 15, 21). ## Practice Area Tags civil-procedure, personal-injury ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the Dallas Court of Appeals denied relief; stay granted and argument set for December 1, 2026. On October 2, 2026 the Court granted a motion to dismiss in part and dismissed the petition, denying the request to vacate the court of appeals' opinion (Orders, Oct. 2, 2026). ## Amicus Involvement None noted --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/26-0295. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.