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.