In re The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co.
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-14-00529-CV (August 6, 2014)
Justices Moseley, Fillmore (Opinion), and Evans
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-14-00529-CV (August 6, 2014)
Justices Moseley, Fillmore (Opinion), and Evans
In this wrongful death case, Plaintiffs contend the fatal accident was caused by a defective Goodyear tire. At Plaintiffs’ request, the district court ordered Goodyear to give Plaintiffs’ counsel and expert witness limited access to the plant where the tire had been made, to view and film tire manufacturing processes there. Goodyear sought mandamus relief, which the Dallas Court of Appeals granted. First, the Court found mandamus the appropriate vehicle, reasoning that “mandamus relief is available when the trial court compels production beyond the permissible bounds of discovery”—something that could not be cured on appeal. Then, after noting that “Texas precedent interpreting rule 196.7 [regarding entry onto the property of another to inspect, photograph, and the like] is relatively sparse,” the Court declared that “mere relevance is not sufficient to justify a request for entry upon the property of another.” Because of the added burdens and risks, a “court must balance the degree to which the proposed inspection will aid in the search for truth against the burdens and dangers created by the inspection.” In this case, the particular machine used to manufacture the tire at issue was no longer at the Goodyear plant, the only machine of its type was being used to make a different kind of tire, and shortly after that tire was made, Goodyear had changed the design of the tire. As a result, the video Plaintiffs sought to make would show different work, by different workers, using different machinery or manufacturing a different tire. So, the appeals court concluded, what Plaintiffs actually sought to do was to create new evidence in the form of a demonstrative exhibit. But, the Court held, “Rule 196.7 does not provide for the creation of new evidence for demonstrative purposes.” The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ, finding the order allowing inspection and filming of the plant to be inappropriate.
