¶1concurring.
¶2On Motion for Rehearing, I concur in the results only in the original opinion.
¶3*479I disagree with the majority opinion in their finding that the trial court did not commit error in denying discovery. The majority opinion cites the testimony of Mr. Wilbeck which shows that he was not even involved in the investigation and had not discussed it with anyone who was involved in preparing the documents sought to be discovered. Therefore, any opinion offered by him as to the reasons for the investigation are purely conclusions and as such do not satisfy the burden of proof necessary to protect the reports from discovery. Further, the mere conclusion that it is “highly likely that a claim would result” is not sufficient to protect investigative reports from discovery. It is clear that the mere belief that a lawsuit may be filed is not sufficient to protect investigative reports from discovery. See Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1986), and Turbodyne Corp. v. Heard, 720 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.1986).
¶4However, in examining the record and the documents sought to be discovered, I would find the error in denying discovery to be harmless for the reasons set forth in the original opinion. Therefore, I concur in . the results only.