*1 TIRE, INC., Petitioner, GENERAL KEPPLE, Kyle
Kenneth E. a/n/f
Kepple, al., Respondents. et
No. 96-0425.
Supreme Court Texas.
Argued Jan.
Decided June *2 Gosda, Moore, Lynne Li-
Dоuglas T. Ann Houston, berato, Levy, Ann Aleñe Ross Akron, Dallas, Casto, Whitley, Jeffrey for Petitioner Cook, Fountain, Austin, L. Bill D. Russell Burford, Jr., Lynn David W. Hol- Bradshaw Phoenix, Colburn, man, Houston, D. Donald AZ, Respondents. for HECHT, Justice, opinion of delivered the PHILLIPS, Court, in which Chief GONZALEZ, ENOCH, OWEN, Justice, and ABBOTT, Justices, join. BAKER and settling dismissing Kenneth After Tire, Inc., against Kep Kepple’s suit ple’s behalf to attorneys moved on their own protective pursuant order issued vacate 166b(5)(e) Texas Rules Civil Rule Procedure,1 disclosure which restricted their during dis documents General covery designated as confidential. motion, holding granted the district of the could that disclosure complied with the restricted unless General procedures “court records” under protection moved Rule 76a. General then 76a, evidentiary Rule after an motion, holding hearing, the denied the “court rec General’s documents were 76a(2)(c) meaning of Rule within the ords” ap The court could not be sealed. rulings.2 court’s peals affirmed the district court erred in- hold that the district Texas All references to rules are Rules Civil Procedure. yoking procedures protection, 76a’s before deter- desired to file a motion to seal the mining whether General’s documents were Although documents under Rule 76a. records”, and that the court abused its conceding applied, that Rule 76a discretion in that the documents or, filed a “motion for were Accordingly, “court records”. wе re- alternative, temporary sealing order.” Gen- *3 appeals’ judgment verse the court of and eral asked the court to continue the terms of protective reinstate the district court’s order. protective the interim order under either (General 166b(5)(c) Rule or Rule 76a. has I sought, never either in the district court or Kyle Kepple injuries suffered severe when appeal, on to restrict dissemination of the the Ford riding Bronco II in which he was beyond original the terms of the rolled over. brought His father Kenneth suit order.) any protective Before further action Kyle’s against Compa- on behalf Ford Motor documents, concerning was taken the howev- ny Tire, Inc., and General the manufacturer er, parties settled the lawsuit. The Kepple the Bronco’s tires. claimed that signed dismissing an order the suit defect in one of the tires caused the tread to prejudice, vacating with -without the interim separate, precipitating the rollover. protective order. motion, On General’s the district court is- later, Kepple’s attorneys Two months and order, protective pursuant sued an interim n employees sought 166b(5)(e), their relief from the inter- permitted Rule General to order, protective contending im designate produced during that Gener- information dis- covery making public safety as confidential after “a bona al’s documents “affect thе is, fide determination that the material in Rule 76a” and therefore “should be made fact, a trade secret or other confidential in- public.” opposition, Over General’s the court formation, the dissemination of which would order, protective vacated the interim but two significantly damage competitive [General’s] days temporary sealing later issued a order position.” required Kepple The order to no- under Rule 76a. General then filed a motion tify disagreed if General he with General’s protections to reinstate the of the interim designation any documents. Confidential 166b(5)(c) protective order under either Rule only Kep- information could be disclosed hearing or Rule 76a. The court scheduled a counsel, witnesses, court, ple’s and motion, giving public on General’s notice as case, jury any plaintiffs’ and to required by parties Rule 76a.3 Three inter- counsel, witnesses, court, jury other proceeding: in the vened Public against alleging suit General a tire defect. Inc., Safety, Citizen for Auto Center Law- Confidential information could not be dis- Justice, Neviel, yers for Public and Jill any expert employed by closed to witness individual.4 competitors. one General’s General order, duced numerous documents under this hearing, At the Rule 76a the court first including containing design specifica- considered evidence on whether the docu tions, data, “аdjustment” reports testing and subject ments were records” to Rule detailing frequency of returns under 76a. After that the documents warranty program. General’s were court the court heard evidence they be sealed under about whether should issuing protective Three after months 76a(1). the standard set forth Rule Based order, pretrial the district court stated at a camera on this evidence and an in review conference, initiative, on its own documents, the court determined limiting order of the docu- dissemination sealing had not met its burden for 76a, comply ments must with which Rule “be the documents ordered governs of court records. The opened general public” cus indicated that General, if names redacted. would be vacated and directed tomer and addresses 76a(3). 76a(7). 3. See Civ. P. 4. See Tex.R. Civ. P. Tex.R. hearing of the post notice appealed.5 Only Kepple filed order must days in advance “at the appeals af- at least fourteen appellee. The court
brief county meetings of firmed, place notices for holding that trial court did where required post- to be governmental bodies concluding that abuse discretion in state time The notice must records that should ed”.11 documents were court must contain public.6 place restricted from the case description of the nature of the er- granted application fоr writ of Any sought to be sealed.12 ror.7 heard right to and be person intervene II sealing question.13 166b(5)(c) a court to order authorizes exceptions, Subject limited to certain cause results of discov- good “that for shown documents of include “all “court records” *4 pro- ery adequately be sealed or otherwise matter in connection nature filed limited, tected, or that that its distribution be Although the term civil court”.14 before be its disclosure restricted.” discovery, unfiled generally not include does procedures for seal- vides the standard of “discovery, not filed does extend to it ing argues first court records. General record, prob- a concerning matters that have 166b(5)(c) apply Rule 76a does Rule general public upon the able adverse effect protective orders. of safety, or or administration health promulgated This Rule in 1990 Court 76a office, govern- operation of or ment_”15 legislative rule pursuant directive.8 The to unfiled dis- application This presumption creates that all records a covery is the rule’s most controversial one of open to the and allows trial courts aspects.16 to seal court records 166b(5) courts, among authorizes trial Rule following: only showing a all of upon of things, to issue orders other (a) in- specific, a serious and substantial discovery. protect trade secrets contained outwеighs: clearly terest which may make “the court provides The rule (1) openness; presumption of this necessary justice any order in the interest (2) any probable adverse effect burden, protect from undue the movant sealing upon general public will have annoy- unnecessary expense, harassment or safety; health or op constitutional, ance, personal, invasion (b) seal- no less restrictive means than rights.”17 argues property General effectively ing adequately will records authority indepen- may courts exercise this protect interest asserted.9 sought protection of Rule 76a when the dent complete hearing, open to a ban disclosure The court must hold an oral is less than sealing support argument, In of its public.10 seeking The the documents. party a 76a(3). 76a(8). P. 5. See 12. Tex.R. Civ. P. Civ. Tex.R. 444.
6. 917 S.W.2d 76a(7). 13. Tex.R. Civ. P. Sup.Ct. 13, (Dec. 1996).
7. 40 J. 131 Tex. 76a(2)(a). 14. Tex.R. Civ. P. Government Code states: 8. Section 22.010 adopt 76a(2)(c). supreme court rules establish- "The shall P. 15. Tex.R. Civ. ing guidelines this use in for the courts of state to justice the interest of whether in the Mucchetti, Doggett J. Lloyd & 16. See Michael settlements, case, including a civil records Discouraging Se to Public Courts: Public Access 426, 1989, Leg., 71st ch. should sealed.” Acts Interest, crecy Public Tex. L.Rev. § Note, Nissen, (1991); Open Court C. Robert Liability Litigation Under Records in Products 76a(1). P. Tex.R. Civ. 76a, Tex. L. Rev. 958-959 TexasRule (1994). 76a(4). 10. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166b(5). (4). (3), Tex.R. P. P. 76a Civ. 11. Tex.R. Civ. points language full access to the dоcuments at the first both Rule
166b(5)(c) recognizes stage, it the documents to and Rule 76a that before determined sealing distinction between documents and be court records. We conclude that merely limiting part.' their Rule erred in distribution. 166b(5)(c) provides may that a trial court apply special procedures The of Rule 76a “discovery order that be sealed or otherwise sealing The to the records”. ” added), adequately protected (emphasis language of the rule does not authorize trial by limiting such as distribution and restrict apply special procedures courts to also these 76a(1)(b) Also, ing provides disclosure. to the threshold determination of whether court, оrdering that a trial before that court is, indeed, discovery particular unfiled sealed, records be must determine that “no subject court record to the' rule. The rule less sealing restrictive means than unnecessarily would burden trial courts and adequately effectively protect
will litigants permitted if full at this specific interest asserted.” The distinction allowed, preliminary stage. If were both rules between and lesser limits party, merely by claiming that unfiled discov- shows, argues, on disclosure ery for a court record met the standard govern protective Rule 76a should not orders 76a(2)(c), trigger an elabo- under Rule could information, significant allowing disclosure rate, expensive process case where like the in this case. discovery exchanged. unfiled has been *5 opposing party required post would be to logical argument While General’s notice, and the court would be appeal, by plain provision it is undercut the evidentiary hearing required to conduct a full 166b(5)(c) “[a]ny of Rule that order under days delay. after at least fourteen General 5(c)' subparagraph this shall be made ac that, correctly argues interpreta- under this provisions cordance with the of with tion, easily 76a could become a tool for Rule respect subject to all court records to that delay likely, gamesmanship. Equally language leeway rule.”18 This leaves no for might parties both courts and view the rule interpretation. discovery, To the extent that they cumbersome that make as so would unfiled, whether filed or is a “court record” arrangements require- elaborate to avoid its 76a, under Rule the court must follow the ments. stricter standards of that rule to limit its dissemination.19 however, contemplate, The rule does
However, may specifically persons parties that other than inter the rules do not set governing the a trial court’s vene the determination is made forth standards before particu- threshold determination of whether whether documents are “court records”. Otherwise, discovery parties largely control lar unfiled is or is not a “court could ap- application regard of the rule without to record.” The district court this case parently required protect. interest the rule seeks to concluded that was to 76a(8), im apply range procedures Similarly, the full of Rule 76a Rule which allows for is, “relating appeal That the mediate of order to seal to this threshold determination. records,” applies to required post public ing unsealing court district court General intervene, notice, determinat any party the threshold “court records” allowed allowing regard determi- ion.20 But intervention before doc to the “court records” Also, although uments are determined to be “cоurt records” nation. the district court bi- have hearing from the does not mean that intervenors should furcated the court records ‘ hearing immediate access to the documents. On to determine whether sealed, contrary, party a has moved to seal it allowed intervenors to when should 166b(5)(c). "court records” under documents constituted 18. Tex.R. Civ. P. 76a). Rule Marshall, Lilly 19. Eli & Co. v. 158; (Tex. 1992) (before Lilly, limiting S.W.2d at Chandler v. disclosure of doc 20. Eli Co., (Tex. suit, Hyundai products liability the trial court Motor uments 1992). parly’s required address claim that such was 76a range proce- of Rule applying a the full court or has filed motion “court records” deter- discovery may to the threshold tective on that consti- dures order record, a tute court trial courts should mination. records over
allow intervenors access
moving party’s objection
until
court
Ill
are court records which
determines
preliminary disclo-
cannot be sealed. Such
on
restrictions
Having determined
compromise the
of
sure would
effectiveness
confidential records
disclosure
order,
possibly
later
even moot-
discovery
Rule
satisfy
must
during
ing
controversy.
anticipates
Rule
76a
76a,
standard
applicable
next consider
we
problem by allowing
this
the trial court to
On
district court’s decision.
review the
“inspect
camera when neces-
parties
Kepple argu-
disagree,
this
issue
case,
sary.”21
present
In the
the district
ing
is
proper
standard
abuse
court allowed
intervenors to examine the
discretion,
contending and General
documents General submitted in camera
sufficiency of the evi-
proper standard is
during
hearing.
76a
the course of
appeals
split
dence.
courts
any harm
cannot
While
caused
issue,
reviewing Rule 76a
three courts
cured,
the trial
now be
we conclude that
and one
for abuse
discretion22
decisions
regard.
court erred in this
for sufficient
reviewing
such decisions
supporting evidence.23
summary,
In
we
hold
when
argues
adopted
legal
that we
party
under Rule
seeks
sufficiency
and factual
standard
review
166b(5)(c)
to restrict
dissemination of
Hyundai
Company.24
Motor
Chandler
discovery,
party
unfiled
and no
or intervenor
case,
disagree.
In that
the court of
discovery
contends that the
a “court rec
is
appeal brought
appeals
ord,”
dismissed
a trial
need not conduct
*6
76a(8) relating
discovery,
to unfiled
con-
any findings
or
on
If a
render
that issue.
application to
cluding that Rule 76a had no
party
opposing
protective
a
or intervenor
discovery.
this conflicted
unfiled
Because
that
discovery
order claims
is a “court
76a(2)(c),
plain language of Rule
we
record,”
with the
the court must make a threshold
However,
appeals’ judgment and
the court of
pub
determination on
issue.
reversed
for further
lic
a
remanded the cause to that court
notice and Rule 76a
are mandat
Although
proceedings.
ed
we stated
if the court finds that the documents
to
permit
appeals
a
the court of
are court records. While
trial court is not
remand would
“any
insufficiency
required
legal
to determine
unfiled
and factual
whether
dis
consider
covery
challenges properly
by Chandler
a court record until re
raised
constitutes
intervenor,
restricting
quested
by party
judgment
final
to do so
a
or
trial court’s
documents”,
expressly
on
we
may
court
raise this issue
its own motion. dissemination of
discussed,
However,
opinion
ap-
the merits of the
previously
a trial
on
reserved
peal.25 The
was not dis-
may
apply
special procedures
standard
review
court
intervention)
puted
“[i]t
is
(except
until it
in
case. Given
Rule 76a
rale
for a trial court to
are court rec
abuse of discretion
determines
the documents
evidence”,26
...
ref-
supporting
in
in
our
ords. The district court
this case erred
without
499,
(Tex.
76a(4).
Anonymous, 869
505
23. Fox v.
S.W.2d
21. Tex.R. Civ. P.
1993,
denied);
v.
App.
writ
Fox
Antonio
— San
507,
Doe,
(Tex.App.—San ton
869 S.W.2d
511
An
Freeman,
92,
Upjohn
Co. v.
906 S.W.2d
95
1993,
denied).
writ
io
1995, writ);
Lilly
(Tex.App.
Co.
no
Eli
&
— Dallas
806,
Biffle,
(Tex.App.
S.W.2d
809
v.
868
— Dallas
curiam).
774,
(Tex.1992) (per
775
24. 829 S.W.2d
1993,
Ltd.,
writ); Boardman v. Elm Block Dev.
no
297,
1994,
(Tex.App.
872 S.W.2d
— Eastland
Freeman,
Id.
writ); Upjohn
v.
no
Co.
writ);
1992,
(Tex.App.
no
Dun
— Dallas
Corp.,
Bocquet Herring, 972
v.
S.W.2d
shie
Motors
curiam).
1992, writ).
- (Tex.1998)
(per
(Tex.App.
no
— Beaumont
very
relinquish
“legal
insufficiency
еrence to
factual
with the documents
challenges” cannot
read to have
therefore
sought
be
estab-
relief
under the rule. We
proper
lished the
standard of review.
do not lose their charac-
hold that documents
they
discovery merely
ter as unfiled
because
employ an abuse of
We
discretion
cam-
to the trial court for in
submitted
discovery
standard
review a trial court’s
inspection
76a
the context of a Rule
era
including
rulings,
rulings
protective
or
hearing.
Although governed
ders under Rule 166b.27
standards,
by stricter
a
order under
at issue include
The documents
order,
Rule 76a is akin to
in that
produced
produced
in this case and those
requires
it
the court to determine
extent
Kepple in
another
made available to
case but
to which information should be restricted
case,
present
the Benson
referred to as
Indeed,
public.
a trial court’s
from
parties agree that the docu
documents. The
threshold determination of whether unfiled
into seven
ments
in this case fall
discovery is a
record” under Rule 76a
standards;
categories:
specifica
cured tire
will often occur
the context of motion for
revisions;
change proposals;
product
tion
protection.
comports
nature of
documents;
developmental testing
tire mold
with an abuse of discretion review standard.
data;
drawings;
and miscel
determining
In
whether court records should
that,
argues
laneous information. General
sealed,
upon
a trial
not called
be
court is
categories,
for each
the trial
of these
se,
finding per
factual
but rather is
make a
abused its discretion
required
public’s
to balance the
interest
not,
they are
were court
because
against an
open
proceedings
individual
“discovery,
rule,
filed of rec
under the
litigant’s personal
proprietary interest
or
ord,
probable
concerning matters that have
privacy.28
necessarily
re
Such
decision
upon
general public
health
adverse effect
discretion,
quires
judicial
exercise
safety,
or
or the administration
basis.
should bе reviewed on that
Accord
office,
A
operation
government.”30
or
ingly,
hold that Rule 76a decisions must
we
it acts
trial
its discretion when
court abuses
reviewed for abuse of discretion.
or,
arbitrary manner
in an
or
unreasonable
refer
differently,
stated
when
acts without
IV
any guiding
principles.31
ence
rules
at
turn now to the documents
not exist where
“An
of discretion does
abuse
outset, Kepple
in this case. At the
issue
conflict
its decisions on
court bases
by producing
records in
argues that
cam
analy
ing
purposes
our
For
evidence.”32
*7
era,
“filed”
with the court so
them
sis,
together
categories other
we
all
consider
records, regardless
they
became court
adjustment
data.
will then
than
tire
meet
whether
would otherwise
data,
adjustment
separately
consider
the tire
for unfiled
“court records” standard
discov
finally
and
the Benson documents.
argument is
ery in Rule 76a. This
without
specifically
party
allows a
merit. Rule 76a
A
for
disputed records to the
submit
the de
tire standards” show
necessary.29
“Cured
review when
Were
in camera
tires General
sign specifications for certain
otherwise,
not review the
trial courts could
formerly manufactured.
or
to manufactured
in
how
documents themselves
contain such information
These
requiring
party
documents
apply Rule 76a without
76a(2)(c).
940,
P.
Masinga Whittington,
30. Tex.R. Civ.
v.
792 S.W.2d
941
1990);
(Tex.
Curry,
Enterprises,
718
Weisel
Inc.
56,
(Tex.1986).
Buller, 806 S.W.2d
Bank v.
Beaumont
(Tex.1991);
Opera-
Aquamarine
Downer v.
76a(6) (requiring trial
P.
28. Tex.R. Civ.
(Tex.1985).
tors, Inc.,
241-242
701 S.W.2d
concluding
finding and
“specific reasons for
state
by paragraph
showing required
whether
(Tex.
Huey,
added).
32. Davis v.
made”) (emphasis
been
1978).
76a(4).
P.
Tex.R. Civ.
components
specific
in
a
document or set of
and materials used
eral’s tires with
tire,
placement
Kepple presented
com-
other evi-
dimensions and
documents.
ponents,
manufacturing equipment
depositions
sup-
through
to be
dence
and affidavits
used, and
the tire
into the
None of
porting
product
how
will
cured
claim
defect.
“Specification
evidence, however,
product.
any
final
de-
linked
revisions”
this additional
changes
scribe the
General made to its сured
documents.
defect
period
a
tire standards over
of time. Simi-
that a manu-
party
A
cannot demonstrate
larly, “product change proposals” describe
research,
design,
proprietary
facturer’s
standards,
suggested changes
design
to the
testing
probable
a
adverse ef-
records have
data,
supporting
test
which standards
safety,
or
as Rule
fect on the
health
may
may
adopted.
not have been
“Devel-
requires
76a
documents are “court
before
opmental
testing
testing documents” show
records”, merely by producing evidence of a
performed
that was
on various
models
products.
Rath-
defect
the manufacturer’s
“Tire
drawings” specify
tires.
mold
the di-
er,
must,
minimum,
party
at
demon-
configurations
mensions
metal
alleged
strate some nexus between the
defect
Finally, the
molds used to form the tires.
Kepple
issue.
and the documents at
Because
category
compris-
“miscellaneous documents”
nexus,
such
failed
demonstrate
inquiries,
es consumer
retention records
classify-
district court abused its discretion
showing
length
of time that certain docu-
ing the
as “court records” under
retained,
product specifica-
were
ments
76a(2)(c).33
Company.
received from
tions
Ford Motor
Kepple’s evidence of a defect General’s
B
alleged
tires did
link the
defect to
documents,
remaining
the “tire
example, Geоrge
these documents. For
Ed-
data”,
adjustment
frequency
chart the
wards,
specializes
a consultant
in tire
who
have
certain
General’s customers
returned
analysis,
expert
failure
testified as
company’s warranty pro
tires under
Kepple.
he
expert
Because
had acted as an
gram,
and the reasons for
returns. Tom
General,
against
witness
numerous cases
General,
Lee,
engineer
former
tes
had
Edwards
examined the in
docu-
camera
primarily as
tified that General uses this data
that, in
ments at issue. Edwards testified
“marketing
tool” to determine customer
separations
his opinion,
tread
in tires
merely
He
satisfaction.
further testified that
design
testing
duced
these
docu-
does mean
because a tire is returned
responsible
ments
been
for numerous
Lee,
According
nothing
it is defective.
opined
traffic
serious
accidents. He
adjustment
adversely
would
data
affect
stock,”
in the
defect
“skim
which holds the
safety.
health and
together,
steel belts
was the root cause of the
problem.
Edwards,
hand,
Edwards
conclu-
on the
characterized
reached these
other
adjustment
industry’s
by analyzing
sions
actual tires
the tire
“re-
involved
data as
accidents, however,
he
port
quality
product.
and he admitted that
card” on the
of its
He
could not
data re-
correlate
tire defect with
testified that
*8
“extraordinary
in the in
vealed an
amount
treаd
information
camera documents.
expert
separations.”
Dennis Carlson also testified as an
for
Edwards further testified that
go
generally
separations
that
tread
can cause a vehicle to
Kepple. Carlson testified
control,
in
testified about
changed
compound
General
its skim stock
out of
he
seriously
any
relating
that
that
in
had
to
cases which individuals
been
caused,
injured
opinion, by
in
change
important
to
in accidents
his
would be
the
however,
Edwards,
separations.
thus
safety. Like
tire tread
Edwards
con-
Carlson
adjustment
the
data did affect
able to
defect Gen-
cluded that
was not
correlate
("Whether
Martin,
Bank,
148
mum Edwards believed to be challenged No one that data had been is group The final of documents involved corrected, properly is no there evidence During the the so-called Benson documents. adjustment that the corrected data could ad- conference, complained to pretrial versely safety. affect health or requested had Kepple the trial court that had al- numerous documents which General Kepple presented also that evidence Gen- ready produced Kepple’s to counsel anoth- provide adjustment figures failed its eral argued er that it not Safety lawsuit. General should Highway National Traffic Ad- produce discovery investigation required be this twice during ministration into safety. attorneys. parties Although the NHTSA closed its to the The therefore same investigation agreed, approval, after five without find- months with court’s that Gen- tires, ing evidence of a defect in General’s produce eral not the docu- would have to Edwards, file, who had reviewed the NHTSA again, ments but that General could not ob- provide testified General did not that that ject admissibility on fact their based figures, agency adjustment with its Kepple’s had obtained them counsel though specifically even the NHTSA had re- words, parties In other elsewhere. quested the information. Edwards thus con- agreed be deemed documents would investigation cluded that the NHTSA was in this lawsuit. have been data, incomplete that the based on The Benson documents were at is provided records should to the along sue at However, possible. government as soon produced in thé other documents case. simply ignored the fact Edwards parties stipulated the Benson documents may complain to person the NHTSA about categories as other fell into the same at time.34 Further- tire manufacturer discovery, and that adduced at evidence more, dependent on is vol- NHTSA equally hearing pertains to the Benson docu untary production of information but is em- however, argues, ments. General compulsory process to powered to use obtain produced under a Benson documents were investigations.35 Restrict- information in by separate issued the Ben protective order adjustment simply ing could disclosure of court, in this son and that the district court investigation. impede any federal While jurisdiction to rescind that appeal, two case had no pending case been *9 Miller, (1997). Confidentiality, Or- 37. Arthur R. Protective § 49 C.F.R. 552.3 Courts, ders, Public to the and Access Harv. 510.3(a) (1997). § 35. 49 C.F.R. 427, (1991). L.Rev. Urged Reopen Slaybaugh, Chuck NHTSA 28, Tires, Probe Business, Tire Nov. of 14112053). (1994 at 1 WL (Tex.1978). the That is situation Although the disagree. teetive order. We originally here. Benson documents were lawsuit, constructively
in a different Edwards, in tire failure George expert an again law- produced the documents in this adjust- the specifically testified that analysis, suit, subject protective to this trial court’s extraordinary “an data reflected ment circumstances, these the dis- order. Under af- separations,” and thus of amount tread jurisdiction modify or re- trict court had safety: public’s the fected protection scind of the Benson documents. adjustment Now, Q: I want talk about adjustment are in What must treated records. The Benson documents be respects all like the other documents General Mr. Edwards? holdings concerning
produced, and thus our card, in- Report guess, I on the tire A: apply equally to those documents the Benson dustry, where stand. documents. doing Q: people are Are the that industry?
grading customers of the :{« [*] ^ # jK A: Yes. explained, have For the reasons we Q: that’s reflected Does the information
judgment appeals reversed is you viewed adjustment in the records to the and case is remanded district you have viewed Kepple in the case— reinstating purpose protec sole case, Kepple adjustment in the records 14, 1994. January tive issued you have not? A: I did. SPECTOR, Justice, opinion an filed you re- Q: information that have Is the part dissenting part, in concurring in and adjustment records in viewed in the Justice, HANKINSON, joined. which case, does that affеct the Kepple safety, your view? SPECTOR, Justice, by joined certainly does. A: It HANKINSON, Justice, concurring part that, dissenting part. Q: why And is sir? There’s, extraordinary there’s A: join part I opinion except in the Court’s say separations. I of tread When amount acted IV-B. I conclude that the trial court qualify I separations, tread classifying the “ad- within its discretion I say separation, and and belt tread justment” as court sub- documents explain later. will ject refusing them. to Rule 76a and in to seal accordingly I of the part dissent from reinstating judgment
Court’s adjustment I con- order on the documents. you randomly, Q: right. just All If turn judgment. cur rest the Court’s you just page of No. or turn to percent and the at cumulative returns
look months, you I want for those don’t shown I. show, figures those direct to tell me what for the trial court was threshold issue is, number-wise, but what I want know whether something that could ser- figures are those records,” defined iously public safety? affect record, concerning discovery, not filed of A: Yes. ef- probable adverse matters that have a vitally it’s Q: you And feel that do general public or safe- upon fect health figures critically those be important office, or ty, the administration public? made government.... operation A: Ido. 76a(2)(c). recog P. As the Civ. Court Tex.R. ought to you government Q: Do think nizes, its discre a trial court does not abuse figures? given conflicting it bases tion when its decision Huey, certainly A: I do. See Davis v. evidence. *10 pur- testimony competitive use for disregards this because manufacturer could Court always has Lee, poses. Lee stated that General expert, disputed
Tom ac- General’s taken to restrict dissemination efforts adjustment curacy figures of the on which adjustment its information. opinion. cross Edwards based his On exami- nation, however, Lee admitted that he had no however, evidence, Kepple presented knowledge underlying firsthand about the adjustment data to tire much of the relates Also, adjustment figures data. on which manufactured model that General not Indeed, key adjustment fig- relied Edwards were which General since 1988. at the parties ures which the focused supрlied Kepple during discovery. had Regarding from and very Additionally, vague Lee about when was adjust- figures production in the reflected alleged discrepancy. he discovered the Carlson, data, ment Dennis a tire failure evidence, conflicting this I Based on con- analyst develop- with extensive research clude that the trial court did not abuse its industry, testified experience ment in the tire holding tire discretion that General’s ad- why it would be “[could not] that he see justment data met standard confidentiality important” to maintain 76a(2)(c). Davis, records” under Rule See production statistics of discontinued at S.W.2d plant model. Carlson further testified capacities are knowl- production common II. jour- edge, in trade published are even I that the trial court did Because conclude nals. abuse discretion testimony, I conflicting con- on this Based adjustment are court documents clude the trial court did not abuse its prop- I must consider whether finding that General failed to discretion erly refused to seal those documents. To sealing meet its burden for presumption openness, overcome the Gen- 76a(l). under Rule demonstrating eral the burden of all of bears following: (a) specific, inter- serious substantial reasons, foregoing For I dissent from outweighs: clearly est which judgment reinstating part of the Court’s (1) presumption openness; adjustment docu- for the (2) any probable adverse effect that ments.
sealing upon general will have safety;
health or
(b) than no less restrictive means effectively adequately will
tect the interest asserted. (b). 76a(1)(a), As with the Tex.R. P. Civ. BOARD OF GAL- APPRAISAL REVIEW determination, review the we “court records” COUNTY, and Galves- TEXAS VESTON the docu trial court’s decision not seal Appraisal of Galves- ton District Central of discretion. ments for abuse Petitioners, County, Texas, ton proven A is an inter properly trade secret in deter est that trial courts should consider HELICOPTERS, TEX-AIR mining seal records whether to INC., Respondent. Marshall, Lilly & v. 76a. Eli Co. No. 97-0404 (Tex.1992). presented evi adjustment contain reports dence that Supreme Court Texas. competi Lee testified that trade secrets. Argued Dec. adjustment data to use tor could 5, 1998. Decided June to switch manufactur tire dealers influence ers. He further testified that the of returns
data shows number figures, another production which
but also