502 S.W.3d 373
Tex. App.2016Background
- Four Texas residents (Bennett, Clark, Lowe, Holloway) were compensated claimants injured in a flash fire at the Lost Cabin Gas Plant; they sued ConocoPhillips in Wyoming and settled.
- ConocoPhillips sought contribution from non-operating Moncrief Parties; Moncrief sued ConocoPhillips in Wyoming for breaching an operating agreement by settling without Moncrief’s approval.
- The Wyoming trial court issued letters rogatory requesting Texas court subpoenas for the four claimants’ depositions; Moncrief filed in Texas to obtain those depositions.
- The Texas trial court issued subpoenas but later quashed Holloway’s subpoena and imposed time/scope/video restrictions on Bennett, Clark, and Lowe after motions for protection.
- Moncrief appealed, arguing the Texas court abused its discretion; the Texas appellate court reviewed whether the Texas court could quash/limit these letters-rogatory depositions and whether the claimants met burdens under Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4 and 192.6.
- Holding: Texas court lacked authority to quash/limit depositions on relevancy grounds (Wyoming court must decide relevance); claimants also failed to prove the depositions were unreasonably cumulative or unduly burdensome, so the trial court abused its discretion — reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moncrief) | Defendant's Argument (Claimants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas court could quash/limit letters-rogatory depositions as irrelevant | Texas court may protect witnesses but should enforce subpoenas per Texas rules | Claimants: depositions are irrelevant to the Wyoming case | Held: Relevancy for use in foreign action is for the Wyoming court; Texas court abused discretion if it acted on relevancy grounds (Ex parte Taylor) |
| Whether depositions were unreasonably cumulative/duplicative (Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4) | Need live testimony on topics not covered in prior depositions; depositions probe settlement reasonableness and damages | Claimants: prior depositions or existing evidence make these cumulative | Held: Claimants failed to show depositions were impermissibly cumulative; Texas court abused discretion to the extent it limited on this basis |
| Whether depositions imposed undue burden/harassment (Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6) | Moncrief: testimony is relevant and proportional to needs of the Wyoming suit | Claimants: depositions would be harassing, traumatic, or unduly burdensome | Held: Claimants produced no supporting evidence of undue burden/harassment; restrictions were an abuse of discretion |
| Whether settlement agreement barred further deposition (Holloway) | Moncrief: settlement between Holloway and ConocoPhillips does not bind Moncrief or preclude third-party deposition | Holloway: settlement included agreement not to depose him again | Held: No evidence the settlement barred Moncrief from deposing Holloway; trial court abused discretion to the extent based on this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Taylor, 220 S.W. 74 (Tex. 1920) (foreign court controls relevancy for depositions taken in Texas under letters rogatory)
- In re Collins, 286 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2009) (protective order standards and trial-court discretion in discovery)
- In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. 1999) (court abuses discretion in limiting discovery absent supporting evidence)
- Garcia v. Peeples, 734 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. 1987) (party resisting discovery must produce evidentiary support for claims of undue burden)
- In re Toyota Motor Corp., 191 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (supporting evidence required to obtain protective order)