Collier Services Corp. v. Salinas

Third, appellant recorded. concedes that objections charge.

he had no to the CORPORATION, COLLIER SERVICES Appellant, State, In Walthall v. (Tex.Crim.App.1980), the held object if defendant had bench confer SALINAS, Judge Hon. Homer ences were not held within the Hidalgo 92nd District Court reporter or were not recorded. The Texas, Appellee. County, in Phillips Court reaffirmed this rule State, (Tex.Crim.App. No. 13-91-222-CV. 1985). appellant The record did shows Texas, Appeals Court of object reporter’s to the court failure to Corpus Christi. charge conference, if record the indeed one occurred, appellant admits June 1991. charge, objection that he had no point Appellant’s error occurred. seventh

is overruled. eighth point, appellant

In his contends judgment

that the written contains errors. begins, judgment day

The written “This

this cause was called for trial....” It then appellant guilty

states that was found

jury, punishment by the trial assessed

court, placed probation. on appearing date on the judgment September

written

Appellant contends that the case actu 5, 1990, September

ally called for trial on reflect this accu

and should be reformed to Appellant

rate date. also claims that the

judgment purports to contains what

signature jury foreman but that the

signature comport does not with the verdict signature.

form We have reviewed necessity

judgment and find no to reform art. 42.01

it. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.

(Vernon infor Supp.1991) sets forth what contain. The judgment

mation the should require judgment to

article does not called, nor date the case was

state what jury sign the require foreman to

does judgment complies with ar

judgment. The to reform the 42.01. We find no need

ticle eighth point of er

judgment. Appellant’s

ror is overruled. court is af- of the trial

firmed. McAllen, Pagan, appellant. D.

Kevin Hole, McAllen, appellee. Ronald G. C.J., NYE, Before and DORSEY HINOJOSA, JJ.

OPINION NYE, Chief Justice. original for a writ proceeding

This is an Relator, Collier Services of mandamus. general pre Corporation complains that the trial court and under the same rules as purpose by denying specifically Collier’s trial for the abused its discretion obtaining information compel post-judgment discovery of to aid the en motion to judgment. forcement The difference provisions under of Rule 621a in order obtaining these two methods of enforcing between to obtain information aid of post-judgment discovery is that Rule 621a judgment. originally The trial court suit, ancillary to the is filed main agreed judgment entered in favor of discovery of while a Rule 737 bill an against Collier and LaMantia-Cullum-Col- independent Butler suit. See v. Stonewall (LCC), $74,956.95. Company, lier & Inc. for Bank, (Tex.Civ.App.- In find of order to assets LCC with which writ). Corpus no Christi inter- satisfy judgment, Collier sent rogatories asking in- about business Butler, plaintiff judg- In a bank obtained by the directors of LCC in terests owned against its debtor defendant and initi- they may if order to determine have secret- post-judgment discovery under Rule ated in order to execution. ed assets avoid response 621a. The then filed a debtor addition, deposed corporate rep- Collier asserting proceeding sepa- Rule a 621a of and resentative against parties rate cause of action third in a non- about settlement funds received of the The bank for amount debt. pro- federal suit. LCC refused to related brought quash reply, which a motion to information, and Collier vide the granted ap- the trial court and the debtor compel discovery. moved the trial court to pealed to our court. denial of Collier’s motion The trial court’s appealability initially analyzed the of We present subject is the orders, discovery stating gener Rule 621a petition for of mandamus. writ that, discovery a ally while a Collier, however, filed an has also during pending liti filed before or motion order, asserting that appeal from the same ruling on a gation appealable, is not a Texas is unclear whether mandamus post-judg law discovery in a motion remedy by appeal proper is the discovery direct of ment action either for bill concerning challenge an order which to in discovery for aid of Rule 737 or under discovery. post-judgment Man Rule 621a judgment under Rule 621a enforcement of only 544; correct a clear abuse damus issues see also appealable. final Id. and duty of a or the violation Authority of discretion v. City Win Lake Water Clear there is no other imposed law when ograd, remedy by writ) (an

adequate law. Johnson no at Houston [14th Dist.] 700 S.W.2d 916 Appeals, discovery Fourth Court pre-trial tempted appeal from of (Tex.1985). Therefore, deter we must first cited Butler in the court sanction which rem adequate has an proposition mine whether Collier that dis for the approval appeal. edy by bills of post-judgment in covery motions op appealable, as discovery are final and there is some Initially, we note that counterpart). pre-trial their posed to appealability of an disagreement about the appeala- However, our discussion type post- of present in the order rendered discovery orders bility of Rule 621a under Tex. judgment discovery proceeding in the real issue Butler. dispositive not Rules of Civil 621a. The Texas R.Civ.P. quashing concluded that the a We provide two means Procedure not dis claims did involve discovery newly asserted post-judgment party may obtain proceed though discovery in a covery, filed Rule 737 enforcing judgment. in aid of ap- and order was final ing, bringing but the traditional means provides disposed of the finally pealable because in the nature of a bill separate proceeding also claims. Id. at see usages newly asserted with the discovery accordance Ring Corp. America 621a Transceiver Rule equity. of courts of Inc., Products, the Around provides post-judgment for writ). 1979, no (Tex.Civ.App. suit, forms and the same same court and - Dallas However, approach to Rule ceptance of the Parks Huffington, Parks v. orders, (Tex.Civ.App they 644-45 are not final or 621a . -Hous n.r.e.), agree ton ref’d writ appealable in themselves. We [14th Dist.] provides held that Rule 621a any suggestion contrary disavow authority granting appeal no from every post-judg- Were we to allow Butler. post-judgment the denial of a motion for concerning discovery under ment order discovery. that Rule The Court reasoned separate, 621a to treated as a final Rule indicates, by applying pre-trial 621a itself court, judgment of the trial appealable rules to sepa- open the door to numerous we would appeal lies from an order concern appeals type that are disallowed rate Therefore, discovery. such interlocutory pre-trial as in terms of way relief from such an order is either covery appeal orders. Because an will of a writ of mandamus or to further seek order, lie from the we review appealable an order under an Rule 737 bill present petition the order under the discovery. at 645. Id. to determine mandamus whether Supreme spoken The has judge Texas Court has discretion. trial abused his only briefly appealability on the of Rule Appeals, 700 Johnson v. Fourth Court of 621a orders in a footnote to Far Arndt v. (Tex.1985). S.W.2d 916 ris, (Tex.1982). 633 500 n. 5 S.W.2d receiving judgment After substantial Arndt, brought original manda LCC, against apparently its favor Collier proceeding compel mus to trial on execute. found no assets which to imposing vacate an order Rule 215a sanc Thus, began post-judg- Collier Rule 621a against applied him tions as under Rule discovery in ment aid of enforcement. appear post- 621a for his failure to at a present controversy centers around LCC’s judgment deposition. complained Relator requests separate refusal to answer two jurisdiction both that the trial court had no discovery, by interrogatory for one and the impose sanctions and that the sanctions by deposition question to Presi- LCC imposed improper. Supreme were LaMantia. dent Steven jurisdic Court held that the trial court had sanctions, impose tion to refused to but First, began interroga- by sending Collier propriety im review the of the sanctions LCC, asked tories to one of which about posed ground “[ajdequate on the and other with which the directors businesses discovery of can effective review sanctions associated, in to deter- of LCC were appeal be obtained once the sanctions mine if assets had been trans- LCC’s part judgment.” become of a final Id. at ferred in order to avoid execution. LCC By Supreme footnote interrogatory and refused objected to the explained, citing Parks, further that “[t]ri grounds on the that the infor- to answer it granting particu denying al court orders or mation was irrelevant and invad- post-judgment discovery requests lar are right privacy. ed the directors’ judgment until final is appealable Second, having heard about a suit disposing rendered of all issues between re- supposedly court in which LCC federal 500; Parks, 616 parties.” Id. at award, asked ceived a settlement Collier Although Arndt does not S.W.2d at 644. deposition question LaMantia about by a “final explain what the Court meant LaMantia, terms of that settlement. how- in terms of dis judgment” ever, any questions refused answer concludes that an or covery, the footnote agreement the settlement about monetary sanctions imposing der “would the federal court order his assertion that appealable be final and when the sanctions had made it confidential. are to a and execution is reduced authorized thereon.” to Com- Collier then its Motion Sanctions, pel the trial court

Nevertheless, although and For the terms of the nei- unclear, after a brief at which appear footnote Arndt denied somewhat generally Supreme party presented ac- ther evidence. Collier indicates Court’s argues generally discovery trial court erred that would aid discovery receiving judgment, denying without evi- in the enforcement of the fur requiring prove balancing pro or LCC to its defens- the item’s dence ther involves discovery. and the on Collier if es to bative value burden denied, discovery weighed against two, one, By points of error four and placed upon discovery burden if LCC five, complains Collier that the trial court granted. Insulating Independent denying its motion to erred Glass/Southwest, Street, covery of other businesses with which LCC (Tex.App. S.W.2d Worth - Fort Post-Judg- By were directors associated. Gordon, orig. proceeding); Interrogatory No. Collier asked at 793. S.W.2d LCC, regard of its directors to each past years, protect for the full name judge may five complete unduly expen address of each or party business from burdensome annoy in which a director is associated from harassment or business sive ance, privileged director is em- any way, or which the and from mat 573; grounds ployed. objected Jampole, on the McAl ters. len, 384; Gordon, requested was not relevant the information 738 S.W.2d at right directors’ and that it invaded the S.W.2d at see also Caudillo v. Chi uminatto, privacy. 1987, origi. proceeding). Corpus Christi seeking

The burden is plead the basis to avoid In the Collier produce exemption immunity and to evi discovery of the LCC directors’ other busi supporting dence that claim. State v. Low interests in order to determine where ness 669, (Tex.1991); 671 ry, 802 S.W.2d Jordan apparently judgment the assets of Fourth Appeals v. the Su might trans proof corporation have been 644, District, 701 S.W.2d preme Judicial clearly rele This information was ferred. 166b(4). (Tex.1985); Tex.R.Civ.P. 648-49 quest for to vant Collier’s requested proving that the This includes to execute. assets on which Valley Forge information is irrelevant. hearing at the LCC offered no evidence 319, Jones, 321 733 S.W.2d Ins. Co. v. prove that the information to 1987, orig. proceed (Tex.App. - Texarkana or that it would be burden was irrelevant ing). harassing require pro to or LCC some Therefore, carry its it. LCC did not duce post- Relevance in the context of prove that the information was burden to aid of enforcement be too not relevant or that would burden the same man generally viewed in must be produce it. require LCC to See some to ordinary pre-trial ner as in Caudillo, McAllen 741 S.W.2d scope proper dis includes within Salinas, 381, 738 385 Bank v. State reasonably calculated to covery anything 1987, orig. pro (Tex.App. Corpus Christi discovery of material evidence. lead - Street, at 802. ceeding); 722 S.W.2d 569, Touchy, 673 S.W.2d Jampole v. See v. (Tex.1984); Bank McAllen State claim that the disclo As for LCC’s 381, Salinas, 738 S.W.2d inter other business of its directors’ sure 1987, orig. proceeding); Corpus Christi right privacy, ests would violate 790, Blackmon, 675 S.W.2d Gordon nor our the Federal Constitution neither 1984, pro orig. Christi (Tex.App. Corpus - expressly mentions Constitution State dis present post-judgment ceeding). In the Nevertheless, federal and right privacy. in therefore, material evidence covery, “right of recognized a courts have state would aid any information that cludes in order variety of situations privacy” judgment. enforcement rights both to protect the of individuals decisions, govern without make certain sought to dis the item be Whether interference, highly regard to with lead to mental reasonably calculated to covered matters, personal prevent and to unlimited assets search for from which to collect its personal disclosure of information. Tar judgment. County Hospital Hughes, rant District v. above, As we stated it is the bur 675, (Tex.App 678-79 . -Fort party resisting discovery den of writ); Worth no see also Whalen grounds privilege of its show Roe, 598-600, 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. present sufficient evidence to establish the 875-876, (1977) (concerning 51 L.Ed.2d defense. privilege Lowry, or 802 S.W.2d at an privacy of medical individual’s 671; Jordan, 648-49; 701 S.W.2d at Tex. records). 166b(4). present La- R.Civ.P. case, however, In the can find we discovery of Mantia and LCC resisted right privacy no protect would LCC agreement terms of the settlement against or its directors the disclosure of the they federal court asserted had directors, interests other business kept ordered these terms to be confidential. provided nor LCC us authori- has hearing, however, they presented At the ty proposition. for this novel No societal evidence at all that the federal court fact protecting interest in of oth- disclosure kept ordered that settlement be confi- er found to such business interests can be testimony dential. There was no about the right override Collier’s to discover LCC’s terms, extent or under conditions which the possible transfer of assets in to avoid supposedly federal court ordered that the Hughes, execution. 734 S.W.2d at agreement kept be confidential. The trial court its discretion abuses Moreover, the federal court order of confi- in preventing discovery when no evidence existed, dentiality, if one was not tendered presented substantiating the exclusion hearing. to the trial court at the

privilege Enterprises, claimed. Weisel offered the assertions of (Tex.1986); Curry, attorney that the terms of the settle Chiuminatto, Caudillo v. ment could not be of an (Tex.App. Corpus orig. disclosed because Christi - they kept the federal proceeding). first, second, order of court that Collier’s fourth attorney dur points and fifth of error confidential. Remarks are sustained. the course of a trial or are not By points six, of error three and Collier actually tes attorney evidence unless complains deny- that the trial in court erred Mabinga tifying. Whittington, v. ing compel to its motion of the (Tex.1990); Homes, S.W.2d Sunrizon the settlement agreement. terms of At the (Tex. Fuller, 747 S.W.2d deposition, generally LaMantia testified denied). App. Antonio writ We - San thought agree- that he that the settlement hold that the trial court its discre abused pursuant ment confidential federal was to a considering by tion LCC’s unsubstantiated order, court and that he thus would refuse confidentiality assertions of as a basis to questions to answer about that settlement deny of the terms of the settle agreement. Weisel, ment. See Cau agree of a terms settlement dillo, 741 S.W.2d at 546. Collier’s third properly under Tex. ment are discoverable points of and sixth error are sustained. 166b(2)(f)(2), R.Civ.P. to the extent conditionally grant petition We Collier’s they Pipeline Palo are relevant. Duro Co. directing of mandamus the trial Cochran, v. 785 S.W.2d 455 compelling enter an dis- court to writ); Houston no see Dist.] [14th covery opinion. in accordance We (Tex. Nermyr Hyde, also are confident that the trial court will abide 1990, writ); Burlington no App. Paso - El and by our decision a writ of mandamus Northern, Hyde, Inc. if the issue trial court fails do will writ). Paso In the (Tex.App. - El so. for the receipt LCC’s of funds of an in federal settlement unrelated suit HINOJOSA, Dissenting opinion by to Collier’s J.

court would relevant HINOJOSA, Justice, dissenting. complete e. The full name and address of each business in which the director is original proceeding arising out This is an any way, associated in or ruling. post-judgment of a trial court’s employed. director is majority holds that denying party responded stating abused its discretion The real interest covery agree- settlement of a confidential that the material not rele- regarding (La- LCC’s vant, and likely and not to lead to relevant Collier, Mantia, Collum, party & the real did, information. The real interest interest) involvement directors’ with busi- however, following interrog- answer the separate- nesses unrelated to LCC. write atory objection: without my ly express view that the trial court INTERROGATORY NO. 30: making its discretion in acted within both money, property, real or other Has reason, For that I respectfully decisions. personal property belonging heretofore dissent. wholly partly corporation or been (Collier Corporation) Relator Services possession transferred to—or is it in the sued LCC for breach of contract. Subse- shareholder, any present or former of— employee, agent, quently, supplemental petition it filed a in- officer, or director of cluding ego claims that LCC was the alter corporation (by or relative blood LaMantia, Joseph of Steven LaMantia and friend, marriage), acquaintance or directors, and that assets were two so, any of them? If for each transaction being com- transferred from LCC to other state: Joseph panies held Steven and LaMan- description complete a. A alleging filed Rule 13 motion tia. LCC transaction. supplemental pleading filed in complete description prop- b. A faith, and that there no evidence bad erty involved. support allegations it contained.1 complete c. The full name and ad- supplemental Relator then non-suited person dress of each involved. petition, ego theory dropping its alter payment d. The or other considera- the LaMantias from the case. in ex- corporation tion the received requir- agreed judgment An was entered change.2 $200,000.00. pay LCC to relator over La- deposition, at a Steven relator questions regarding the Mantia was asked assets had been fraud- to discover whether of a federal suit which LCC reason not ulently For some concealed. responded the set- He was involved. record, suspected reflected in the confidential. tlement was had been transferred that certain assets party in companies owned the real filed a motion to Relator sought discovery In an effort to locate interest’s directors. The motion sanctions. following question settlement, property such the of the federal the contents 9(e). interrogatory submitted: Attached an answer deposition the of Steven to the motion was 9 INTERROGATORY NO. LaMantia. person who is a director For each director as or has been a corporation the trial court ruled that At the the years, please in the last five any timé corporation’s entitled to the “Plaintiff is state: dealings in en- records and their financial denied the motion to

tirety.” The court argued that the real Relator has at no time provides sanctions if false or 1. Rule 13 fully groundless pleadings filed. See Tex.R.Civ.P. information in are in interest failed to disclose interrogatory 13. 30. There is no its answer to compelí filed re- that a motion to record interrogatory “The 2. 30 was: The answer to complete questing more answer. a corporation transferred has not than salaries." above-referenced items

379 surrounding and for sanctions. the Relator now circumstances the court’s brings original proceeding ruling by majority, and, this mandamus are overlooked in compel production my opinion, an in faulty analysis. effort lead to requested information. matter, As an I initial believe that the agree majority’s analysis majority failing to consider errs the fact jurisdictional separately issue and write necessarily the trial court made its on merits of this mandamus. based on all of the events that oc during litigation, curred just this and not appellate standards review arguments presented hearing. at the determining court applies whether to power The trial court has the and discre issue a are writ of mandamus well settled. judicial tion to take notice of its entire file only to Mandamus issues correct a clear determining is what relevant. See abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Fourth McCurry Co., v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. 742 916, Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 917 863, S.W.2d 867-68 (Tex.App. Corpus - (Tex.1985); McAllen State Bank v. Sali 1987, denied) (trial may Christi court nas, 381, (Tex.App 738 384 S.W.2d . -Cor judicial take notice its own records in pus orig. proceeding). ap Christi 1987 An case); same Pitts v. Dallas Nurseries Gar pellate issuing a writ of court mandamus Center, Inc., 34, (Tex. den 37 545 S.W.2d errs when it reverses a trial court 1976, writ) Civ.App. (post- unless, discretionary ruling - Texarkana under the cir judgment proceeding); Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 201. cumstances of the facts law This the court do on its own motion. permit the trial court to one make but example, For Johnson, 201(c). 917; 700 Tex.R.Civ.Evid. decision. S.W.2d at See Walker, 542, (Tex. Keller v. 544 S.W.2d Johnson, Pat Walker & Co. v. App. orig. proceeding), the (Tex.1981). lie, For mandamus to - Dallas appellate that the trial court noted wrong, trial court must be more than properly judicial took notice of evidence must have erred. We cannot sub preceeding finding and events trial in at stitute our for that of the trial pay that the relator was able certain Johnson, court. costs. only appropriate Mandamus is remedy parties record and briefs discovery rulings. incorrect the instant indicate that relator filed case Axelson, McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d supplemental petition alleging ego an alter (Tex.1990); Corp. General Motors theory and fraudulent concealment of as- Lawrence, (Tex.1983). This pleading sets. permitted directors Generally, discovery into however, parties; in as matter when Rule 13 privileged, not that is relevant to filed, plead- motion sanctions was subject “reasonably matter and is cal dropped and the directors culated to were no lead of admissi Axelson, 553; longer parties. post-judgment pro- ble When evidence.” S.W.2d at 166b(2)(a). assets, ceedings discover Although this is were initiated to TEX.R.CIV.P. standard, discovery again permit broad maintained that assets were fraudulently ted matters. into irrelevant See General concealed.

Motors Corp., 651 S.W.2d at Gordon alleged In an these effort to discover Blackmon, (Tex. assets, 9(e) interrogatories 30 and were 1984, orig. App. Corpus proceed Christi - propounded. Interrogatory which is set ing). Generally, the trial court has broad above, provided complete discovery forth discovery matters. discretion in Gor regarding all information the transfer of don, 793 (discovery 675 S.W.2d at is discre entity. any assets from The tionary). answer no assets had indicated that been In determining necessarily transferred, whether trial court indicated discretion, clearly its we must view that none director’s other abused business- ruling prior in the dealings court’s context of the es were involved in Nevertheless, evidence and the circumstances. of with Some LCC. still sought relating information to businesses I note that the entire record involving the directors an answer to has not been into this court. Rela- 9(e). interrogatory This information was respect bring tor’s burden is to a sought though even the directors were showing sufficient record that the trial longer parties, all relevant information court abused its discretion. As regarding already their businesses was above, ruling stated on relevance cannot interrogatory closed in the answer to vacuum; rather, definition, made in a be Thus, any disclosed would relevancy the trial court must determine necessarily irrelevent. the context of the within entire case—un- hearing, properly After the the court totality der the of the Fail- circumstances. corporation’s ruled that financial bring pa- ure to the court documents and dealings records and were discoverable in pers bearing subject relevancy on the entirety. their When the to inter- answer argument waives answers to considered, rogatory 30 is it is clear that Thus, 9(e) interrogatory are relevant. as the court denied of the denying an additional basis for the relator’s names of businesses with which the di- requested relief, I would hold that relator rectors were in- involved and that did not bring failed to a sufficient record to this volve LCC. court to demonstrate that the trial court I would hold that it was the trial finding within discretion in abused its court’s discretion to determine that all rele- sought by the additional information disclosed, ready vant information was all 9(e), interrogatory answer to which did not and that all new information LCC, concern was not relevant. 9(e) interrogatory relevant. majority The also holds that the record is previously This court has that “the noted insufficient to that the settlement establish discretionary nature of and the agreement in confi the federal case was amorphous relevancy notion of most often dential, subject and therefore not to dis against appellate counsels court interven covery. The at the was on burden discovery process.” tion in the Gordon produce in interest to some the real (Tex. Blackmon, agree settlement evidence that the federal 1984, orig. proceed App. Corpus Christi - ment was confidential. See Cos. Western Inc., ing) (citing Pat Walker & Co. Spears, 730 S.W.2d & Sur. Co. v. 308). The S.W.2d at Fourteenth Court 1987). (Tex.App. deposi The Antonio - San recognized Appeals has also that it rare LaMantia, which, my tion Steven ly appropriate appellate for an court to view, record,3 part of the contains guess question second court on a a trial following: relevancy: should not substi “we feel we Q. you it As understand what were trial court judgment tute our for that of the settlement of that case? terms relevancy.” in a C-Tran Dev. Chambers, Corp. Mr. Hole: Was it confidential? 1989, orig. (Tex.App. Dist.] [14th - Houston Mr. LaMantia: Yes was. proceeding). we are the instant clearly sufficient for the This evidence is judgment substituting our for that that the settlement was trial court to find question relevancy. This trial court on confidential, deny its dis- and therefore to proceeding. in a mandamus we cannot do Thus, finding covery. this court errs Johnson, (appellate at 918 agree- “no evidence” that the not substitute court). ment was confidential. that of the trial director, LaMantia, to the relator’s motion to deposition tion was attached 3. The of Steve part compel It and for sanctions. the relator’s motion to was attached to file, point of at majority court’s and the focal discussion indicates that and for sanctions. reason, hearing. that this deposition For this I feel be considered for the purpose cannot properly evi- considered it was not tendered into evidence hearing. disagree. deposi- court. dence apparently is This court of view only way RANDLE, Randle, to establish that the Dewayne settle- Marvin agreement Builders, in the federal case Inc.,

ment Appellants, Randle copy be to tender a confidential would agreement inspection. for an camera NCNB TEXAS NATIONAL Although disagree. privileges I certain BANK, Appellee. documentary proof, e.g. may require see id. No. 05-90-01083-CV. (the documents themselves con- substantiating evidence stitute Texas, Appeals Court attorney-client privilege), in the claim of Dallas. case, testimony by person instant June 1991. knowledge

personal constitutes sufficient agreement’s evidence bring

confidentiality to compelled

covery within court's discretion. view, sup- my adequately this evidence

ports ruling, particularly trial court’s trial court’s concern expressed

view principle comity state between courts.4

and federal relator seeks to

If the that the establish

trial court abused its discretion agreement

ruling that not dis-

coverable, upon it was them to incumbent sufficient court to

establish a record in this

prove so, Their that fact. failure to do

my view, has resulted in of their a waiver

right complain in this court. summarize, I deny

To would First,

mandamus for three reasons. there supporting the trial sufficient evidence interrog-

court’s that the answer 19(e) unnecessary.

atory is irrelevant and

Second, to bring relator failed a sufficient court to

record into this establish

trial court abused its discretion question

failing answer

9(e). Finally, there sufficient evidence agreement

indicating that the settlement confidential, and failed to es-

tablish For these reasons be- otherwise. should not issue the writ of

lieve I dissent.

mandamus. effect, (Supremacy ordering gard. art. VI this court is disclosure See U.S. Const, Clause). of this settle- a federal If relator seeks information ordered confidential agreement, feder- power to do so from the court. This Court does not have the should re- a federal in this al court. overturn court’s decision

Case Details

Case Name: Collier Services Corp. v. Salinas

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jun 19, 1991

Citation: 812 S.W.2d 372

Docket Number: 13-91-222-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.