 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Ray11/10/1995
The issue in this mandamus is whether the relator is entitled to discovery after the real parties in interest waived their objections to discovery. The relators, John H. Young and Douglas Park, a limited partnership, filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court to order Judge Ray to grant all the relief requested in their motion to compel discovery responses. We conditionally grant the relators' petition for writ of mandamus.
The relators (the plaintiffs) sued several insurers and underwriters (the defendants) for bad faith and other claims arising out of two insurance policies. The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit after a judgment was rendered against them in an earlier lawsuit in which the defendants had refused to defend and indemnify them. In the earlier suit, the plaintiffs were sued in Colorado for the wrongful death of a woman who struck a cow while driving alongside the plaintiffs' property. In October 1994, a court in Colorado rendered a judgement in excess of $2,000,000 against the plaintiffs.
On January 20, 1995, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendants. On April 17, the plaintiffs sent the defendants a demand letter for coverage. On April 20, the defendants denied coverage and refused to pay the claim.
On June 20, the plaintiffs deposed Leslie Wilton, a representative of some of the defendants. Wilton testified the defendants denied coverage on the advice of their counsel, the Rice Fowler law firm. Wilton testified that the defendants relied on the investigation made by the law firm to determine that Young, one of the plaintiffs, did not control the Douglas Park Partnership, the other plaintiff. If Young did not control Douglas Park, there was no coverage under the insurance policies. Wilton had no information how the law firm determined that Young did not control Douglas Park.
On August 4, the plaintiffs sent a request for production of documents to the defendants, asking for all documents relating to the assertion that their claims were not covered under the policies. In the requests for documents, the plaintiffs asked for 20 categories of documents.
The defendants' response to the requests for documents was due within 30 days of the request, that is, on September 7. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 167(2). The defendants did not respond or object to the plaintiffs' requests for documents within that time.
On September 21, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of all the documents they had requested. On September 28, the defendants responded to the motion to compel and filed late objections to the requests for production of documents. In their response to the motion to compel, the defendants said they had already produced all non-privileged documents in May and June 1995. They asserted that no responses to the requests were necessary because the requests were not "appropriate" ones. The defendants did not make any argument regarding "good cause" for late objections to the discovery and attached no affidavits.
In their late objections to requests for production of documents, the defendants objected on one or more of the following grounds: the requests were vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, or invaded one or more the privileges (attorney-client, attorney work product, party communications, witness statement, or consulting expert). The defendants did not file a motion to extend the time to file their late objections to the discovery requests.
The motion to compel was submitted to the trial court on October 10. The hearing was for argument only and no evidence was presented. On October 11, Judge Ray signed an order that granted the
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|