In re Dakota Directional Drilling, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 288

On March 20, 2015, Plascencia (driving a Dakota-owned truck) rear-ended a vehicle driven by Bundick in which Plaintiffs Barwick and Cardenas were passengers.
Plaintiffs sued Dakota and Plascencia three days before the two-year limitations period expired; Bundick was not named as a defendant.
Plaintiffs served requests for disclosure with the petition; Dakota and Plascencia were not served until days after limitations expired and did not respond to disclosure requests until August 21, 2017.
In those responses Relators identified Bundick as a possible responsible third party and filed a motion to designate him on September 21, 2017.
Plaintiffs objected solely on timeliness, arguing the responses identifying Bundick were untimely under Rule 194.3; the trial court denied the designation on that basis.
Relators sought mandamus relief, arguing the motion to designate was timely under section 33.004 because it was filed well before any trial date and defendants could not have disclosed Bundick earlier due to late service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants lost statutory right to designate a responsible third party by serving disclosure responses late after plaintiffs filed on eve of limitations	Relators’ disclosure was untimely because their responses identifying Bundick were served ~140 days after suit and beyond the 50-day response period	Plaintiffs filed suit days before limitations expired and served defendants late; it was impossible to timely disclose before limitations ran, and the designation was filed well before trial	Trial court abused discretion; mandamus granted to vacate denial — designation must be allowed absent a pleading defect and opportunity to cure
Whether plaintiffs' timeliness objection was a valid basis under §33.004(g)	Objected under timeliness of Rule 194.3 response	Objected party must show pleading deficiencies and failure to cure per §33.004(g); mere late disclosure is not a permitted ground if disclosure was impossible before limitations	Plaintiffs’ sole timeliness objection was insufficient under §33.004(g); court agreed with Bustamante reasoning
Whether relators have an adequate appellate remedy	N/A (implicitly: denial reviewable on appeal)	Mandamus appropriate because error affects defense presentation and may be unrectifiable on appeal	Mandamus was appropriate; relators lack adequate remedy by appeal

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standard requiring demonstration of clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus principles for interlocutory rulings)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 226 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to analyze or correctly apply the law)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for appellate review of trial court discretionary acts)
In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2017) (timely-filed §33.004 motions: relator need only show trial court abused discretion to obtain mandamus)
In re Bustamante, 510 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016) (en banc) (holding defendant does not lose §33.004 right if disclosure before limitations was impossible; Rule 193.6 analysis)
In re CVR Energy, Inc., 500 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (orig. proceeding) (erroneous denial of responsible third-party designation can skew trial and justify mandamus)