in Re the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 04-16-00590-CV

2013 fatal crash allegedly caused by catastrophic failure of a 2009 Goodyear 385/65R22.5 G286 tire built on an RTN tire-building machine at Goodyear’s Danville, VA plant.
Plaintiffs sought production that evolved into a request for entry onto Goodyear property to observe and videotape RTN machines in operation (including manufacturing tires different from the subject tire).
Goodyear objected citing vagueness, undue burden, trade secrets/confidentiality, operational disruption, changed/removed equipment, and that the machines and processes are proprietary.
Trial court ordered one plaintiffs’ expert, one counsel, and a videographer access to observe and videotape first- and second-stage RTN machines (or as-similar-as-practical substitutes), including making tires representing plaintiffs’ alternative designs; tapes to be provided to Goodyear and retained unless ordered produced after in-camera review.
On mandamus review the court treated the request as an entry-on-property request governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.7 and held the trial court abused its discretion because the ordered inspection would create demonstrative/new evidence (manufacturing different tires under different conditions) rather than reveal how the subject tire was built, and plaintiffs failed to show necessity outweighing burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nature of discovery: production v. entry	Request for production of the machines; therefore standard for productions applies	Request actually seeks entry onto property to observe/videotape operations; Rule 196.7 applies	It is an entry-on-property request governed by Rule 196.7
Standard of proof to obtain entry	Mere relevance suffices	Greater showing required: must show necessity outweighs burdens of entry	Plaintiffs must show more than mere relevance; greater inquiry required
Scope of ordered inspection (videotaping / manufacturing demonstrations)	Seeks “real evidence” by viewing the RTN machine that produced the subject tire	Order compels Goodyear to create demonstrations of different products and reveal proprietary processes, causing disruption	Order compelled creation of new/demonstrative evidence (different tires, machines, workers, conditions) and exceeded Rule 196.7’s permissible discovery
Availability of mandamus	Trial court discretion should stand; appeal adequate	Mandamus appropriate because discovery compelled beyond permissible bounds and cannot be remedied on appeal	Mandamus conditionally granted; trial court must vacate its orders or writ will issue

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard; remedy when trial court abuses discretion)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard for correcting trial-court action)
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009) (mandamus when discovery compels production beyond permissible bounds)
In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 437 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (trial court abused discretion by ordering creation of videotaped demonstrations at tire plant)
In re Kimberly–Clark Corp., 228 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (Rule 196.7 requires heightened inquiry for entry onto another’s property)
In re SWEPI L.P., 103 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (Rule 196.7 governs entry-on-property discovery)