Juan F. Quantanilla v. Baxter Painting, Inc., 05-14-00685-CV

Quintanilla injured on the job while painting for Baxter Painting, Inc.
Quintanilla sued Baxter Painting for negligence alleging unsafe workplace, faulty equipment, inadequate training, and safety rule failures.
A jury returned a verdict for Baxter Painting; trial court entered a take-nothing judgment.
Quintanilla moved to exclude witnesses (sequestration) under Rule 614/267; the court refused.
On appeal, Quintanilla argues the sequestration denial was reversible error; court affirms judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying sequestration of witnesses.	Quintanilla says sequestration was mandatory and exclusion would prevent tailored testimony.	Baxter Painting argues no reversible error despite the ruling.	No reversible error; denial not shown to probably cause improper judgment.

Drilex Sys., Inc. v. Flores, 1 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 1999) (sequestration rules; mandatory upon request)
Elbar, Inc. v. Claussen, 774 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (sequestration requirement; limitations)
In re H.M.S., 349 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (sequestration error not reversible without harm)
Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 903 S.W.2d 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (depicted deposition and bills of exception; evidentiary records)
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (bill of exception procedure importance)