Swain v. SWB Yellow Pages, Inc., 081299
| Decision Date | 12 August 1999 |
| Citation | 998 S.W.2d 731 |
| Parties | (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999) DARREN B. SWAIN D/B/A HI TECH COMMUNICATIONS, APPELLANT V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL YELLOW PAGES, INC., APPELLEE NO. 2-99-002-CV |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
PANEL A CAYCE, C.J.; DAY and DAUPHINOT, JJ.
In this appeal, we must determine whether Appellant Darren Swain, the defendant at trial, was entitled to testify on the issue of his damages despite his failure to respond to Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages' discovery requests. We hold he was not.
In 1996, Southwestern Bell sued Swain for breach of contract based on Swain's failure to pay for yellow pages advertising. Swain countersued for damages he allegedly incurred as a result of errors that appeared in his Southwestern Bell yellow pages advertisements.1 In January 1998, Southwestern Bell sent Swain a second set of interrogatories and a request for production. Among other things, Southwestern Bell asked Swain to (1) produce all documents on which he relied for the calculation of damages alleged in his counterclaim, (2) identify the total amount of damages sought by Swain for each element or cause of action in his counterclaim, and (3) identify all sources, facts, or information that he used, consulted, or considered in determining the amount of damages to seek in his counterclaim. Swain did not answer in whole or in part, nor did he object to any of the requests.
On October 6, 1998, the case was tried before a jury. At trial, Swain attempted to testify on the amount of damages he incurred as a result of Southwestern Bell's alleged errors. The trial court refused to allow him to do so. After the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Southwestern Bell, Swain filed a motion for new trial alleging he was entitled to testify on the issue of damages notwithstanding his failure to respond to discovery requests pertaining to that issue. The trial court denied Swain's motion and this appeal followed.
The standard of review for a trial court's decision to impose discovery sanctions is abuse of discretion. See Bodnow Corp. v. City of Hondo, 721 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Tex. 1986). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159 (1986). In other words, the reviewing court must determine whether the trial court's action was arbitrary or unreasonable. See id. at 242.
Rule 215.5 of the rules of civil procedure2 mandates that a party who fails to respond to a request for discovery cannot present at trial the evidence he had a duty to provide in a response, unless the trial court finds good and sufficient cause shown in the record for such failure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.5, 733-34 S.W.2d (Tex. Cases) LXIV-LXV (1988, amended 1998); Gentry v. Weaver Dev. Co., 909 S.W.2d 606, 610-11 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995, no writ). The provision in Rule 215.5 pertaining to a party's failure to respond to a discovery request is a mandatory rule, and its sole sanction is the exclusion of the evidence withheld. See Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. 1992) (op. on reh'g); Gentry, 909 S.W.2d at 611. The exclusion is automatic, unless there is good cause to excuse its imposition. See Alvarado, 830 S.W.2d at 914. Although a trial court has discretion to determine whether the offending party has met his burden to show good cause, the trial court has no discretionto admit the testimony excluded by the rule without such a showing. See Gentry, 909 S.W.2d at 611.
On appeal, Swain does not dispute the fact that he failed to respond to Southwestern Bell's discovery requests. Nor does Swain argue that he had good cause for failing to do so. Instead, he simply contends that Southwestern Bell waived the right to have his testimony excluded because it did not file a motion to compel discovery. We disagree.
The cases cited by Swain in support of his position are factually distinguishable because they involve discovery disputes. See Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993); Lewis v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F & H Investments Inc. v. State
... ... Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently encountered this situation in Swain v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex. App ... ...
-
CHAPTER 14 - 14-3 Discovery Sanctions
...by failing to answer questions during her deposition).[91] Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b)(3)(A), (B); see Swain v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, 998 S.W.2d 731, 732-33 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) (affirming a sanction precluding the counter-plaintiff defendant from testifying about his damages ......
-
CHAPTER 6.I. Motion Authorities
...for Lawyer Discipline, 1 S.W.3d 209, 215 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (evidence sanction); Swain v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) (issue sanction); Pena v. Williams, 547 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1977, no writ.)......