Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 29 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. D-1827,D-1827 |
| Citation | 829 S.W.2d 157 |
| Parties | ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., Relators, v. The Honorable John MARSHALL, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Robert G. Hogue, Mark E. Smith, Dallas, Joe C. Freeman, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Wade C. Smith, Dallas, John L. Hill, Houston, for relators.
Paul L. Smith, Dallas, for respondent.
In this products liability suit, plaintiffs requested discovery of documents relating to the drug Prozac. Defendants filed a motion with the trial court seeking an order limiting the disclosure of certain of these documents under Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, based upon a claim of trade secret. At the hearing on the motion, the application of Rule 76a to trade secrets was disputed, and the trial court declined to consider the merits of this claim.
Although the rule's definition of "court records" excludes "discovery in cases originally initiated to preserve bona fide trade secrets or other intangible property rights," Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a(2)(c), it does not mean that access to trade secrets cannot be limited in other types of litigation. Regardless of the cause of action, a properly proven trade secret is an interest that should be considered in making the determination required by Rule 76a. If the trial court determines the documents are "court records" within the meaning of the rule, it must decide whether any specific, serious, and substantial interest, including a trade secret interest, has been established that justifies restricting access to the documents in question.
The defendants filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court, and plaintiffs responded as the interested parties. The court determines that the writ of mandamus should conditionally issue because the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct a hearing and render decision on the motion in compliance with Rule 76a. See Texas State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 388 S.W.2d 409, 417 (Tex.1965) (). Having reached this conclusion, the court expresses no opinion on any aspect of the merits of the relators' motion under Rule 76a.
We conditionally grant the writ of mandamus without oral argument pursuant to Rules 122 and 170 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Fourteenth District Court in and for Dallas County should hear and render decision on the relators' motion in compliance with Rule 76a....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall
...court later ordered that Lilly's trade secret claim be considered in a hearing on sealing under Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex.1992, orig. Although expressing concern in this court only with the question of public disclosure, Lilly continued its ......
-
In re Taylor
...267, 269 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1993, orig. proceeding); Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426; Chiles, 788 S.W.2d at 207; see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. Valerie contends that Respondent has no ministerial duty to rule on Richard's contempt motion because it is ......
-
In re J.C.L.
...no discretion attaches, such as refusing to conduct a hearing or rule on a properly-pending motion. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.proceeding); see also In re Williams, No. 07......
-
In re Black
...16De Rouville v. State, 2018 Tex. App. Lexis 265 ............................................................ 15Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992) ......................................... 13Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573,578 (Tex. 2012) ..........................
-
CHAPTER 6 Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
...2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (Gray, C.J., concurring from denial of mandamus).[123] See, e.g., Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief to order the trial court to rule on pending motion, but "express[ing] no opinion on ......