in Re: Pendragon Transportation LLC
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2046
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Pendragon sued six defendants alleging breach of contract and trade-secret misappropriation; multiple contentious depositions followed.
- At a June 12, 2013 deposition of corporate rep Nicholas Massey, Pendragon’s counsel frequently objected and instructed witness not to answer; the trial court overruled many objections and ordered answers.
- The trial court sua sponte appointed a special master to attend future depositions and rule on objections, finding the case “exceptional” and that depositions would otherwise devolve into chaos.
- The court’s appointment order required Pendragon to pay the master’s fees in advance (retain ers of at least $1,000 before each deposition), subject to later reallocation.
- Pendragon objected in the trial court but waited over six months from appointment (and less than two weeks before trial) to file a mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals, offering no justification for the delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a special master under Tex. R. Civ. P. 171 | Pendragon: appointment improper — case not "exceptional" and no good cause | Trial court/Defendants: facts (repeated obstruction at depositions) justified appointment | Denied as to appointment — court held Pendragon waived challenge by unreasonable delay in seeking mandamus |
| Whether the trial court erred by requiring Pendragon to prepay the special master’s fees before they accrued | Pendragon: prepayment violates Rule 143; amounts are security for anticipated costs | Trial court: required advance payment subject to later reallocation | Granted as to fees — prepayment was an abuse of discretion; mandamus conditionally ordered to vacate that portion of the order |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. Canales, 806 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1991) (appointment of master requires exceptional case and good cause)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus to correct clear abuse of discretion; mandamus is extraordinary and governed by equitable principles)
- Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993) (equitable principle that delay may waive mandamus relief)
- In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2009) (delay in seeking mandamus can forfeit relief absent justification)
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Mancias, 877 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994) (requiring security for anticipated costs before final judgment is improper under Rule 143)