In re Ford Motor Co.
Decision Date | 26 August 2022 |
Docket Number | 13-22-00083-CV |
Parties | IN RE FORD MOTOR COMPANY |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Ford Motor Company (Ford) contends that the trial court[2] abused its discretion by requiring it "to admit or object to the authenticity of tens of thousands of documents produced during discovery" when the real party in interest, Nancy Coll, "has not yet provided actual notice of the documents actually intended for use." This original proceeding concerns the construction of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, which governs the self-authentication of documents produced in discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.7. The underlying case is a personal injury product liability matter in which Coll was struck by a 2018 Ford F-250 when she was walking through the parking lot at Moore Plaza in Corpus Christi, Texas. Coll alleges, in part, that the Ford F-250 should have been equipped with a pedestrian detection system. We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
On March 30, 2020, Coll filed her "Plaintiff's Original Petition and Requests for Disclosure" against Ford and other defendants, who are not parties to this original proceeding. The petition included the following section:
On April 23, 2020, Ford filed an "Objection to Rule 193.7 Notice." In that objection, Ford asserted that the notice provided by Coll constituted a "blanket nonspecific attempt" to invoke Rule 193.7. Ford contended that this paragraph did not constitute "actual notice" as contemplated by Rule 193.7 and noted that it had not yet produced any discovery in the case. Ford further asserted:
In the spirit of this Notice, further, and out of caution, Ford responds to the substance of the "notice" by objecting to the authenticity of this bulk designation of all documents produced by Ford in discovery. As a group, the documents undoubtedly will contain many individual documents which Ford does not have sufficient knowledge to authenticate. Requiring Ford to review all documents without actual knowledge that they may be used in the litigation places an unnecessary burden on Ford that is not contemplated by Rule 193 and is counterproductive to the stated object of streamlining discovery and of encouraging production of complete discovery. Ford calls upon [Coll], then, to specifically identify all documents [she] intends to use at any proceeding to provide Ford actual knowledge that such documents may be used at trial and to allow Ford an opportunity to object as allowed under Rule 193.7.
Ford requested the trial court to grant its objection to Coll's "attempted bulk designation of documents to be used at future proceedings in this case and order [Coll] to instead identify specific documents produced by Ford that [Coll] actually anticipates using in the litigation."
On January 14, 2022, Coll filed a "Motion to Compel Regarding . . . [Ford's] Objections to [Coll's] Rule 193.7 Notice."[3] Coll argued that she provided the notice required by Rule 193.7 in her petition and "yet again" by correspondence sent to Ford "on January 4, 2022." She argued, in relevant part, that:
Coll requested the trial court overrule Ford's objections to her Rule 193.7 notice. Coll asserted that she had attempted to resolve this matter with Ford but had been unable to do so. As exhibits, Coll included a January 3, 2022 letter to Ford's counsel which discussed Ford's responses to Coll's requests for production, but did not address the Rule 193.7 issue, and a January 13, 2022 letter to Ford's counsel regarding its objections to the requests for production and asserting that counsel "would also like to visit about [Ford's] Objection to Rule 193.7 Notice." The record does not contain a letter dated January 4, 2022 as suggested in the body of Coll's motion to compel.
On February 8, 2022, the trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing on Coll's motion to compel. At the hearing, Ford's counsel stated:
In response, Coll's counsel asserted that the purpose of the rule was "to avoid what we are doing right now," and it is "to make it clear that when a party produces [a] document in discovery it authenticates it." Coll's counsel argued that:
Coll's counsel further asserted that it would be unlikely for a party to produce a document from its own files, then contest its authentication. In response, Ford explained that its files contain documents from third parties such as the government, suppliers, vendors, and the media. Ford reiterated its position that Rule 193.7 is triggered by notice that the document "will be" used at trial, not "may be used" at trial. Ford's counsel further argued that:
So[,] we don't want to waive all our authenticity objections. Chances are it won't . . . turn out to be a big deal. But I think the right course is to wait until we do exchange exhibit lists; and then at that point, more than likely, almost all the documents Ford will have no problem with. If there are a handful, it's at that point that we can work with [Coll] to very quickly reach some sort of resolution on the use of the document.
The trial court took this matter under advisement, and the parties thereafter discussed continuing the March 7, 2022 trial setting.
By order signed on February 16, 2022, the trial court granted Coll's motion to compel regarding her Rule 193.7 notice and ordered Ford to "state which of the documents it admits to the authenticity of and which of the documents it does not, and why, within [thirty] days."
This original proceeding ensued. By one issue, Ford contends that the trial court abused its discretion, leaving Ford without an adequate remedy on appeal, by granting Coll's motion to compel and ordering Ford "to admit or object to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial