Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

In re Kuntz – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 180, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 168 (Tex. 2003), the Supreme Court held that a person's mere access to a document does not constitute "physical possession" of the document under the definition of "possession, custody or control" stated in Rule 192.7(b). Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d at 184.

There, Kuntz's ability to access confidential documents that his corporate employer had prepared for a business client did not constitute possession of the documents within the meaning of the discovery rules. Id.

In addition, Kuntz's production of the documents would have violated the confidentiality agreement with his employer, and the consulting agreement between his employer and its client, thereby subjecting him to potential liability. Id.