Lindsey v. O'Neill
| Decision Date | 03 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3628,C-3628 |
| Citation | 689 S.W.2d 400 |
| Parties | George LINDSEY, et ux., Relators, v. Honorable Jack O'NEILL, Judge, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
W. Jiles Roberts, Buchanan Dam, for relators.
B.J. Walter, Jr., Liddell, Sapp, Zivley & Laboon, Jess H. Hall, Jr., Houston, for respondents.
This is an original mandamus action brought by George Lindsey and Betty Lindsey, individually and as next friends of their son, Thomas Daniel Lindsey, to compel Judge O'Neill to rescind his order limiting the scope of their Second Amended Notice of Deposition. This court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 1733 (Vernon Supp.1985). Because we believe the trial court's order improperly restricted the scope of discovery as defined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we conditionally grant the writ.
The Lindseys brought the underlying lawsuit in this cause against several defendants including certain named physicians, several pharmaceutical companies, and Hermann Hospital in Houston, based upon medical malpractice and products liability theories. In the course of conducting pretrial discovery, the Lindseys served their Second Amended Notice of Deposition upon one of the defendants, Travenol Labs, Inc. This deposition notice requested Travenol to produce individuals for deposition on some thirty-nine subject areas. Travenol moved for a protective order and the trial court ordered twenty-one of these subject areas stricken from the notice on the ground that the subjects called for Travenol to produce expert opinion testimony. The trial court struck another eight subjects from the notice on relevancy grounds. As to the remaining subject areas, the trial court limited the scope of permissible inquiry by the Lindseys to only such facts as are, or may lead to, matters relevant to the issues identified by the Lindseys' Seventh Amended Petition. The trial court also quashed the document request which accompanied the deposition notice.
TEX.R.CIV.P. 200 provides that a party may take the deposition of a private or public corporation. Subsection 2b requires that a deposition notice of a corporation describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. Rule 200 makes no distinction between deposition notices directed toward corporations based upon whether the deposition is to pertain to purely factual matters or matters calling for expert opinion.
Subsection 3 c of TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b exempts from discovery the mental impressions and opinions of an expert retained or specially employed in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial if the expert will not be called as a witness and the expert's work product does not form the basis, either in whole or in part, of the opinions of experts who will testify. Subsection 3d exempts from discovery communications between a party and its agents "where made subsequent to the occurrence or transaction upon which the suit is based, and made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Packer
...S.W.2d 471 (Tex.1988); Turbodyne Corp. v. Heard, 720 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.1986); Terry v. Lawrence, 700 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.1985); Lindsay v. O'Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.1985). On many other occasions, however, we have still required a showing of inadequate remedy by appeal in mandamus proceedings ......
-
In re Does 1-10
...the trial court's order improperly restricts the scope of discovery defined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Lindsey v. O'Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Tex.1985). We conclude that, when a discovery order entirely fails to apply the rules of discovery, issuance of mandamus requiring the ......
-
In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc.
...trial court's order improperly restricts the scope of discovery as defined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lindsey v. O'Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Tex.1985) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Similarly, mandamus relief may be available when the trial court compels production beyon......
- Centex Homes v. Buecher
-
CHAPTER 11 - 11-1 Depositions in General
...producing a designee and seeing what he has to say or what he can cover.").[111] Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2(b)(1).[112] Lindsey v. O'Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding) (holding that a trial court erred in striking twenty-one subject matters from the deposition notice for a......
-
Table of Cases
...Lin v. Metro Allied Ins. Agency , 305 S.W.3d 1, 3-4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist. 2007] (mem. op.), §1.02.14.2.2 Lindsey v. O’Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. 1985), §7.19 Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), §§7.19, 7.35, 7.46 Lone Star Ford, Inc. v. McGlashan , 681 S.W.2d 720 (Tex. Ap......
-
CHAPTER 6 - 6-3 Procedure
...v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1990).[108] Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. 1990). [109] See Lindsey v. O'Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1985).[110] Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. 1990).[111] Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554-55 (T......
-
CHAPTER 4 - 4-3 Discovery's Scope
...to the pending subject matter that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."); Lindsey v. O'Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (Under former Texas Rule 166b(2)(a), "the scope of discoverable information shall include 'any ......