Steenbergen v. Ford Motor Co.

Citation814 S.W.2d 755
Decision Date18 June 1991
Docket NumberNo. 05-89-01396-CV,05-89-01396-CV
PartiesPeggy STEENBERGEN, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Joseph Ray Steenbergen, Deceased; and Janet Steenbergen As Next Friend of Julie Ann Steenbergen and Jennifer Jo Steenbergen, Minors, and North River Insurance Company, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Transport Life Insurance Company, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Richard N. Countiss, Houston, Rita M. Zimmer, Leon R. Russell, and R. Windle Turley, Dallas, for appellants.

Laura A. Lane, Dallas, Eugene W. Brees, II, Austin, Malcolm E. Wheeler, Los Angeles, Cal., John M. Thomas, Dearborn, Mich., Kevin J. Cook, Dallas, and Deborah Beck McWilliams, Austin, for appellees.

Before ENOCH, C.J., and GERALD T. BISSETT 1 and BILL J. STEPHENS 2, JJ. Retired (Sitting by Assignment)

OPINION

ENOCH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a take-nothing judgment rendered in a wrongful death case. Only the products liability cause of action was submitted to the jury, which found that the automobile involved in the collision was not defectively designed. In six points of error, the Steenbergens challenge various evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. They also allege the trial court erred by allowing the court reporters to prepare daily transcripts of testimony presented at trial. Additionally, one of the intervening insurance companies brings two points of error challenging the manner in which the trial court assessed a portion of the court costs. And finally, in a cross-point, Ford alleges the trial court erred in overruling its motion for summary judgment, which raised the issue of federal preemption of part of the defective design cause of action. For the reasons stated below, we modify the judgment of the trial court, and as modified, affirm.

FACTS

On July 1, 1984, Joseph Ray Steenbergen was involved in an automobile collision. He was driving a 1982 Ford LTD when his vehicle collided with a pick-up truck. Steenbergen, who was not wearing his seatbelt, suffered multiple injuries. After several months of hospitalization and treatment, he was released, but shortly thereafter died, ostensibly as the result of these injuries.

DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

The Steenbergens have grouped their first three points of error together, and we will address them in that manner. They generally complain that they were prevented from obtaining evidence necessary to the presentation of their case by the manner in which the trial court allowed Ford Motor Company to respond to requests for production. Specifically, they allege that Ford's method of producing documents in response to their request for production of documents No. 17, and the trial court's protective order, was harmful error requiring reversal. We disagree.

Request No. 17 asked Ford to produce:

All documents regarding, discussing, or pertaining in any way to any communications from you or to you or from any other person to any other person regarding, discussing, or pertaining in any way to the subject of use or installation of airbags in motor vehicles, including documents from or to:

(1) any governmental entity;

(2) any trade or professional association;

(3) any of your agents, employees, or representatives;

(4) any member of the public;

(5) any other motor vehicle manufacturer.

In response, Ford indicated this request would require the production of what could amount to millions of documents. Ford had been collecting these documents in what came to be known as the "reading room" in response to this and numerous other cases involving claims based on the absence of passive restraints in its vehicles. As a result, Ford sought and received a protective order from the trial court approving, among other things, production of these documents at Ford's headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan.

The Steenbergens argue that allowing Ford to produce these documents in the reading room in Dearborn violates Rules 167 and 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Assuming that the Steenbergens have not waived any error by failing to complain in the trial court (indeed, if not expressly approving) of this procedure, we find the Steenbergens' argument to be without merit.

The goal of discovery is to seek the truth, to ensure that disputes are decided by the facts revealed, not those concealed. Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex.1984). We must recognize that the adversarial approach to discovery, however, oftentimes frustrates this purpose. Parties can hinder, or be hindered by, their opponents, by forcing them to utilize repetitive and expensive methods to find out these facts. Garcia v. Peeples, 734 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.1987). Also, parties frequently make overly broad, burdensome and/or harassing requests for information, or seek nondiscoverable matters. McKinney v. National Union Fire Ins., 772 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex.1989). It is well known that discovery costs are a major part of the overall expense of a trial. For that reason, our courts have recognized that the concept of shared discovery can be an effective means of insuring full and fair disclosure. Allowing similarly situated parties access to information from a common adversary promotes consistency in responses and prevents needless duplication and expense. Garcia, 734 S.W.2d at 347.

However, it is important for us to recognize that the tool of shared discovery cuts both ways. Just as a plaintiff should be allowed access to the discovery of other plaintiffs dealing with identical issues, so too should a defendant facing multiple lawsuits be granted the opportunity to reduce the expense and intrusion on its affairs by providing a common pool of information in a central location. Indeed, it is apparent from the record that the Steenbergens, in fact, did share access to this common pool of information with a number of other individuals involved in similar litigation against Ford.

Rule 167 requires the party producing documents to "produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business, or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request." TEX.R.CIV.P. 167(1)(f). That is precisely what Ford did. In response to numerous lawsuits, Ford had collected in the reading room in the usual course of its business of defending itself in passive restraint litigation, all those documents which the Steenbergens requested. And the Steenbergens' Request No. 17 did not seek to organize or label these documents into categories. It merely indicated five groups of individuals or entities it wished included as either sources or recipients of communications regarding, discussing, or pertaining in any way to airbag use or installation.

Rule 168 allows the party responding to a discovery request the option:

to specify the [business] records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and, if applicable, to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries. The specification of records provided shall include sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and identify as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answers may be ascertained.

TEX.R.CIV.P. 168(2)(b).

All the documents in the reading room apparently satisfied the Steenbergens' request. Ford responded to the Steenbergens' request in a manner which the trial judge and the Steenbergens themselves found satisfactory up to the time of trial. A party will not be heard to complain of error in the trial court which occurred at that party's request. Shafer v. Bedard, 761 S.W.2d 126, 131 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, no writ). The Steenbergens sought and were granted access to countless documents pertaining to passive restraints. They cannot now complain that because of the sheer magnitude of their request, it was impossible for them to ferret out those documents that would be most damaging to their opponent. Further, they cannot complain that Ford sought to introduce documents that they may have overlooked or perhaps even consciously decided did not aid in the presentation of their cause. The Steenbergens were given the opportunity to examine the documents in the reading room for over two years before trial. They requested and received copies of over 16,000 of these documents, and nothing prevented them from requesting and receiving copies of all of those remaining.

The overriding objective of our rules is "to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants ... with as great expedition and dispatch and at the least expense [ ] to the litigants...." TEX.R.CIV.P. 1 (emphasis added). Litigants include both plaintiffs and defendants. The Steenbergens cannot insist on taking advantage of virtually limitless access to the information Ford was required to make available to them, and later complain that the information they requested was more than they could digest. Absent some clear showing that the action of the trial court made it impossible to obtain crucial evidence, implicit in which is proof that more diligent discovery was impossible, we will not upset the trial court's conduct of discovery. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 818 (3rd Cir.1982). We overrule the Steenbergens' first three points of error.

AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS

In their fourth point of error, the Steenbergens claim the trial court erred by refusing to admit, for lack of authentication, certain documents which Ford had produced. The Steenbergens argue that these documents were essentially self-authenticating because they were produced by Ford in response to a request for production.

The breadth of the Steenbergens' Request No. 17 sought discovery of communications from, among others, any member of the public, any trade association, or any other automobile manufacturer. Ford produced a great many such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Cecil v. T.M.E. Investments, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 29 d4 Dezembro d4 1994
    ...disturbed absent a demonstration that the court abused its discretion. Alvarado, 865 S.W.2d at 154; Steenbergen v. Ford Motor Co., 814 S.W.2d 755, 760 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, writ denied), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 831, 113 S.Ct. 97, 121 L.Ed.2d 58 (1992); see also Downer v. Aquamarine Operato......
  • Kirkpatrick v. Memorial Hosp. of Garland
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 9 d4 Setembro d4 1993
    ...trial court erred in admitting evidence is an abuse of discretion standard. TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 104(a); Steenbergen v. Ford Motor Co., 814 S.W.2d 755, 760 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, writ denied), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 831, 113 S.Ct. 97, 121 L.Ed.2d 58 A party may cross-examine a witness on any ma......
  • Rodriguez By and Through Rodriguez v. Hyundai Motor Co., 13-94-573-CV
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 30 d3 Abril d3 1997
    ...or when production would diminish the availability of files for other litigants also seeking them. See Steenbergen v. Ford Motor Co., 814 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, writ denied), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 831, 113 S.Ct. 97, 121 L.Ed.2d 58 (1992). However, it has also been held that suc......
  • Thomas v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 25 d3 Agosto d3 1993
    ...see also Kutch v. Del Mar College, 831 S.W.2d 506, 510 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, no writ); and Steenbergen v. Ford Motor Co., 814 S.W.2d 755, 761 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, writ denied). "Inherent" powers include the power to change, set aside, or otherwise control the court's own judgme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 1 Introduction
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Discovery Title Chapter 1 Introduction
    • Invalid date
    ...judicial system[.]" (quoting John H. Beisner, Discovering A Better Way, 60 Duke L.J. 547, 549 (2010))); Steenbergen v. Ford Motor Co., 814 S.W.2d 755, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied) ("It is well known that discovery costs are a major part of the overall expense of a trial."); Thom......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT