542 S.W.3d 774
Tex. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Ralph Figgs sued GreCon and multiple other defendants for injuries from a plant explosion; Figgs settled with several co-defendants (the "Settling Parties").
- GreCon served a Rule 194.2(h) request for disclosure of "any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3(g)." Figgs responded "None at this time."
- GreCon moved to compel production after learning of settlements; Figgs later submitted settlement agreements for in camera review but refused broader disclosure, arguing portions (notably settlement amounts) were not relevant pre-trial.
- The trial court, after in camera review, denied GreCon’s motion to compel and noted defendants could seek the agreements at trial.
- GreCon filed a mandamus petition asking the appellate court to order production; the appellate court conditionally granted relief, directing the trial court to vacate its denial and order Figgs to produce the settlement agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GreCon) | Defendant's Argument (Figgs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance/discoverability of settlement agreements before trial | Agreements (including amounts and terms) are relevant pre-trial for settlement credits, witness-bias impeachment, and assessing exposure | Settlement amounts and some terms are not relevant until after trial/verdict; discovery for settlement strategy is improper | All relevant portions of settlement agreements are discoverable pre-trial under Rules 192.3(g) and 194.2(h); trial court abused discretion by denying production |
| Burden of proof and timing to assert protection/objections | Resisting party must prove why portions should be withheld; failure to move for protection by the disclosure deadline waives protection | Figgs argued requesting party (GreCon) bore burden to prove relevance; also contended he timely opposed production in response to the motion to compel | Burden to show why information should be withheld generally rests on resisting party; court concluded Figgs failed to timely assert protection and thus abused discovery rules (majority divided on relying on waiver theory) |
| Use of settlement agreements to show witness bias or cooperation | Agreements may reveal cooperation, promises, or incentives affecting witnesses; thus admissible or leading to admissible impeachment evidence | No provisions in the submitted agreements indicate cooperation or inducement; production unnecessary | Agreements are discoverable as reasonably calculated to lead to impeachment or bias evidence; nonsettling defendants entitled to examine agreements for bias issues |
| Adequate remedy by appeal if production denied | Denial prevents meaningful appellate review of settlement-credit calculations and limits trial impeachment uses | Production could be sought at trial; amounts relevant only if plaintiff prevails | Mandamus appropriate because denial of discovery may not be remedied adequately on appeal; appellate court conditionally granted mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Univar USA, Inc., 311 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2010) (settlement agreements discoverable under Rule 194; resisting party bears burden to show nonrelevance)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995) (settlement amounts in unrelated cases not discoverable for shaping settlement strategy)
- Palo Duro Pipeline Co. v. Cochran, 785 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990) (relevancy is litmus test; cash amounts not relevant to conspiracy claim in that context)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1998) (defendant bears burden to prove entitlement to settlement credit)
- First Title Co. of Waco v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. 1993) (one-satisfaction rule and rationale for crediting settlements against overall recovery)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus appropriate where discovery denial cannot be adequately remedied on appeal)
- In re Morse, 153 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2004) (failure to fully respond to disclosure or move for protection can constitute abuse of the discovery process)