in Re: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
437 S.W.3d 923
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Relator Goodyear seeks mandamus to undo trial court order compelling entry to a NC plant for plaintiffs' counsel, expert, and videographer to demonstrate tire manufacturing.
- Wrongful death case alleging tire defects in a March 2007 P265/75R16 114S Kelly Safari Trex SL OWL.
- Plaintiffs sought limited access to first and second stage machines or substantially similar machines to film and observe the process.
- Trial court ordered a one-hour entry divided into two 30-minute segments, one with a nylon-cap-ply tire and one without.
- Evidence shows plant changes post-manufacture; the specific production line and size are not currently used on the same or equivalent machines; multiple machines and configurations are unavailable for the subject tire.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to curb discovery beyond rule 196.7. | Goodyear argues trial court abused discretion. | Mandamus granted to the extent the order exceeds Rule 196.7. | |
| Whether entry onto property should be allowed for demonstrative video creation. | Plaintiffs need to demonstrate process and safety design differences. | Entry for new, generic evidence is inappropriate under rule 196.7. | Disallowance of creating new demonstrative evidence; order vacated. |
| Whether the scope of entry should include contemporary or drastically different machines. | Video would link defects to manufacturing process. | Demonstration would involve different workers and machines. | Limitations aligned with rule 196.7; broader entry denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kimberly-Clark Corp., 228 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (entry requires necessity; not for blanket skeletal discovery; cannot create evidence)
- Amis v. Ashworth, 802 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1990) (photographing existing conditions only; not for staged evidence)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (adequacy of appellate remedy; mandamus when no adequacy of appeal)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard; need clear abuse when no adequate remedy)
- In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009) (discovery boundaries in entry-on-land disputes)
- In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (purpose of discovery is truth-seeking; avoid concealment)
- CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (mandamus standard; limited extraordinary remedy)
- In re SWEPI L.P., 103 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (entry onto land; limited purposes and balancing test)