Gone, But Not Forgotten: Broker Entitled to Commission After Its Listing Terminated

Ebby Halliday Real Estate, Inc. v. Giambrone

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-00386-CV (February 28, 2023)

Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia (Opinion, linked here)

Brent M. Rubin

On September 2, 2020, Giambrone and Ebby Halliday Real Estate executed an exclusive listing agreement that provided Halliday a 6% commission if Giambrone’s property sold. After five months, Giambrone had not received any serious offers, so Giambrone and Halliday entered into a “Termination Agreement.” The Termination Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that 3% of the sales price would go to Halliday if Giambrone sold the property by December 31, 2021.

In June 2021, Giambrone had Compass list the property, and it promptly sold. Giambrone refused to pay Halliday the 3% fee prescribed in the Termination Agreement—$167,250. Halliday sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Giambrone’s motion. Halliday appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment, holding Halliday was entitled to the 3% fee. The appeal focused largely on the “producing cause” doctrine. This doctrine, which dates back to the Texas Supreme Court’s decision Goodwin v. Gunter, 185 S.W. 295, 296 (Tex. 1916), provides that a broker’s entitlement to a commission vests by procuring the sale. Here, Compass, not Halliday, found the buyer. But the producing cause doctrine is only a default rule, and parties can displace it through the terms of their agreement.

After observing that it is “not uncommon” for a broker to receive a commission by agreement after having its listing terminated, the Court of Appeals concluded the Termination Agreement overrode the producing cause doctrine. Because the termination agreement provided Halliday a 3% fee if Giambrone agreed to “sell or lease the Property” to “anyone” on or before December 31, 2021, Halliday did not need to procure the sale to receive the fee. Therefore, the Court of Appeals rendered a $167,250 judgment for Halliday and remanded for the trial court to determine Halliday’s attorneys’ fees on its breach-of-contract claim.

Preserving Objections to Arbitration, and the Limited Scope of the FAA Exemption for “Workers Engaged in Foreign or Interstate Commerce”

Gordon v. Trucking Resources, Inc.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No 05-21-00746-CV (November 15, 2022)

Justices Myers (Opinion, linked here), Pedersen III, and Garcia 

Ken Carroll

Gordon and Trucking Resources compete in recruiting truck drivers for transportation companies. Two of Trucking Resources’ employees—each of whom had signed a non-compete that included an arbitration agreement—resigned and went to work for Gordon’s competing company. Trucking Resources sued the employees for breach of their agreements and sued their new employer, Gordon and his company, for tortious interference and conspiracy. It then moved to compel arbitration of that dispute. One of the former employees objected, but Gordon and his company did not. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration. After the arbitrator ruled for Trucking Resources, Gordon and his company asked the trial court to vacate the arbitration award, arguing (1) Section 1 of the FAA expressly exempted this dispute from arbitration and (2) Gordon and his company could not be compelled to arbitrate because they were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. But the Court of Appeals rejected both challenges.

The FAA states that it does not “apply to contracts of employment of … workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. Drawing from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the appeals court explained that, for this exemption to apply, the workers in question “must at least play a direct and ‘necessary role in the free flow of goods’ across borders”—they “must be actively ‘engaged in transportation.’” While the truck drivers they recruited likely would fit that description, the recruiters themselves would not. And so the exemption did not apply here.

Beyond that, however, the Court stated that “an objection to arbitration under the 9 U.S.C. § 1 exemption from arbitration must be raised before the trial court rules on a motion to compel arbitration.” Here, Gordon and his company did not raise their objection until after the arbitration had concluded and the award had been confirmed. Because “they did not assert the exemption from arbitration before the arbitration took place, they [did] not preserve[] the argument for appellate review.”

Similarly, the Court explained, the “opportunity for the trial court to cure any error from requiring nonsignatories to arbitrate is before the court rules on the opposing party’s motion to compel arbitration, not after the arbitration proceeding.” Here, Gordon and his company didn’t raise this and other arbitrability arguments until after the arbitrator had rendered his award. Consequently, they failed to preserve error on those issues, and the Court of Appeals could not address them.

Finality Bites—Again

JMJ Development, LLC v. Ramolia

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-01100-CV (July 27, 2022) 

Justices Myers, Molberg (Opinion, linked here), and Garcia 

Ken Carroll 

Another appeal down the drain because of confusion about whether a judgment was final. 

Ramolia sued JMJ and Barton for breach of contract. They counterclaimed. Ramolia sought and secured summary judgment on his breach-of-contract claim. Even though Ramolia had not moved for summary judgment on JMJ and Barton’s claims against him, the court’s summary judgment order was titled “Final Judgment.” And it included the “magic” finality language blessed by the Texas Supreme Court in Lehmann v. Har-Con: “All relief requested in this case and not expressly granted herein is denied. This judgment finally disposes of all parties and claims and is appealable.” JMJ and Barton timely moved for a new trial but did not file their notice of appeal until after the deadline had expired, including the time for an extension.

Faced with the prospect that the tardy notice of appeal would bar their appeal altogether, JMJ and Barton argued the judgment was not final and appealable because Ramolia’s summary judgment motion had not sought disposition of their claims against him. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). The Court of Appeals disagreed. 

A judgment is final, the Court said, “if it actually disposes, or ‘clearly and unequivocally’ states it disposes, of all claims and all parties.” The summary judgment order did that, whether it should have or not. “A judgment that grants more relief than a party is entitled to is subject to reversal”—assuming it is timely appealed—“but it is not, for that reason alone, interlocutory,” and therefore non-appealable. “If it is clear, then the order is final and appealable, even though the record does not provide an adequate basis for rendition of the judgment.” In this case, the Court held, the judgment “was clear and unequivocal, the record is irrelevant, and further analysis is prohibited.” Because JMJ and Barton didn’t file their notice of appeal on time, therefore, the Dallas Court dismissed the appeal, and JMJ and Barton are stuck with a judgment that might have been “subject to reversal,” at least in part, had they recognized that judgment was final and filed their notice on time.

Mandamus Relief for Denial of Advancement of Defense Costs

In re DeMattia

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00460-CV (April 12, 2022)

Justices Schenck, Nowell (Opinion, linked here), and Garcia

Brent M. Rubin

Mark DeMattia co-owned Restoration Specialists, LLC and served as its managing member. In 2018, he sold the company. But a few days before the closing, he allegedly copied or deleted certain files. Under its new owners, Restoration later sued DeMattia, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets.

DeMattia, in turn, demanded that Restoration indemnify him and advance his defense costs, pursuant to Restoration’s corporate regulations. The Texas Business Organizations Code allows LLCs to indemnify and advance defense costs, through their organizing documents, to both current and former officials and governing persons. After Restoration denied his demand for advancement, DeMattia counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment. Restoration responded that the advancement provision in the company regulations, by its terms, did not apply to former managers like DeMattia. The trial court denied DeMattia’s motion.

DeMattia sought mandamus relief in the Dallas Court of Appeals. Applying contract interpretation principles, the Court held that the advancement provision in Restoration’s corporate regulations did cover former managers like DeMattia, so the trial court erred by denying DeMattia’s motion for summary judgment. The Court also rejected Restoration’s argument that DeMattia’s “unclean hands”—his alleged misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty—barred advancement as a matter of public policy. The Court explained that every lawsuit involves allegations of wrongdoing, so denying advancement based mere allegations of unclean hands would render the right to advancement a nullity.

Finally, the Court held DeMattia did not have an adequate remedy by appeal, a requirement for mandamus relief. The right to advancement can be satisfied only during proceedings in the trial court, so proceeding to trial without advancement, when a party is entitled to advancement, would defeat the right to advancement. Therefore, the Court ordered the trial court to vacate its denial of summary judgment and issue an order granting DeMattia’s motion.

Standing to Challenge Zoning Decisions

City of Dallas v. Homan

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-01111-CV (March 31, 2022)

Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Garcia (Opinion available here)

Kelli Hinson

Katherine Homan filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that an amended zoning ordinance was invalid. The City of Dallas filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Homan had no standing to challenge the ordinance. The trial court disagreed, denied the plea to the jurisdiction, and granted summary judgment in favor of Homan on her declaratory judgment claim that the ordinance is invalid. The City appealed.

The Dallas Court of Appeals agreed Homan had standing to contest the ordinance. Standing to challenge a government action requires a showing that the plaintiff suffered a particularized injury apart from the general public. So, in the context of a zoning decision, a plaintiff has standing “when the zoning affects the plaintiff differently than other members of the general public.” The Court noted that the Texas Legislature has created a mechanism for parties living within 200 feet of a proposed zoning change to receive notice and have the opportunity to protest the change. The Court found this to be a recognition that property owners within 200 feet of a proposed zoning change face a greater risk of injury to the use, enjoyment, and value of their property than the general public. This is a sufficient interest in the process to confer standing.

Don’t Sleep on Mandamus in Dallas

In re Ruff, No. 05-21-00886-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas February 15, 2022) Justices Molberg, Reichek (Opinion, linked here), and Garcia

In re Perez-Merino, No. 05-22-00082-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas February 14, 2022) Justices Schenck, Reichek (Opinion, linked here), and Carlyle

In re Tekin & Associates, LLC, No. 05-21-00219-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas February 9, 2022) Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III (Opinion, linked here), and Goldstein

Ken Carroll

There is no hard and fast deadline for filing a mandamus petition. But, although mandamus is not technically “an equitable remedy,” it is guided by principles of equity—including laches. And in the last week alone, the Dallas Court of Appeals has summarily denied three mandamus petitions for what it deemed to be excessive delays in filing. In each opinion the Court said, “[A]n unexplained delay of four months or more can constitute laches and result in denial of mandamus relief,” citing Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding), and decisions from the Dallas Court of Appeals and others to the same effect. With these three short, substantially identical opinions in a single week, the Court would seem to be signaling that, absent a good explanation, a delay of four months in filing for mandamus relief can (will?) trigger denial of a petition irrespective of the merits. Moral of the story: if you’re considering filing a mandamus in the Dallas Court of Appeals, get on with it.

Evidence Required at the Threshold for Direct Access to Opponent’s Electronic Device

In re Cooley

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00445-CV (February 2, 2022)

Justices Schenck (Opinion, linked here), Nowell, and Garcia

Ken Carroll

Cooley sued Methodist Richardson Medical Center, alleging she was injured while a patient there. Cooley and her housemate took photos of her injuries. Methodist sought production of the photos and the associated metadata. Cooley produced a CD with the photos and what she contended was all metadata. Methodist disagreed that all metadata had been produced, and sought direct access to the electronic devices on which the photos were taken to pursue the metadata it contended was missing. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Methodist’s motion to compel the requested direct access.

Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009), the Dallas Court of Appeals granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its order that Cooley gave Methodist direct access to her electronic devices. The Dallas Court noted the admonition in Weekley that “ordering examination of a party’s electronic storage device is particularly intrusive and should be generally discouraged.” To justify direct access to an opponent’s electronic device, the Court said, “[t]he procedural protections identified in Weekley Homes require that the requesting party show that the responding party has defaulted in its obligation to search its records and produce the requested data, that the responding party’s production has been inadequate, and that a search of the opponent’s electronic device could recover relevant materials.” What’s more, this is a “threshold” evidentiary requirement. Where, as here, the requesting party does not put forth the required evidence, its request for direct access must be denied—or, in this case, vacated on mandamus.

Foreign Finality

Moreno v. Halperin

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00858-CV (December 14, 2021)

Justices Myers and Garcia (Opinion, linked here) [Burns, C.J., recused]

Ken Carroll

Filing a “foreign” judgment for domestication in Texas under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act “instantly creates a Texas judgment that is enforceable.” The clock therefore immediately begins ticking on a potential appeal (limited though that may be in scope) and any post-judgment motions.

A federal court in Delaware entered judgment against Moreno and in favor of a bankruptcy trustee based on Morenno’s wrongful diversion of funds from the debtor in bankruptcy. The court awarded the trustee several million dollars and imposed a $10 million constructive trust on Moreno’s home in Highland Park, which allegedly had been purchased with the diverted funds. On January 22, 2020, the trustee domesticated that judgment in Dallas County in accordance with the UEFJA by filing it in a state district court. And then the fun began.

Moreno promptly filed a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing the Texas homestead exemption precludes enforcement of the constructive trust on his Highland Park home. Soon thereafter, Moreno’s wife intervened to assert her interest in the Highland Park property, and the trustee then asserted claims against Moreno’s wife and sister for fraudulent transfer and sought judicial foreclosure with respect to the property. The trial court denied Moreno’s motion to vacate on September 10, 2020, and Moreno filed his notice of appeal a few days later.

The Dallas Court of Appeals dismissed Moreno’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding his notice of appeal untimely. While his motion to vacate functioned as a motion for new trial, extending the initial deadline to appeal, even that extended deadline expired April 21, 2020—90 days after the foreign judgment was domesticated and became a final Texas judgment. The trial court’s September 10 order denying that motion to vacate did not resurrect Moreno’s right to appeal, because that order was void. The trial court had lost plenary jurisdiction months earlier, 105 days after the creation of the Texas judgment (30 days after Moreno’s motion was denied by operation of law, 75 days after the judgment). But, Moreno argued, the pendency of his sister’s intervention and the trustee’s fraudulent transfer and foreclosure claims surely made the “judgment” non-final, because it did not dispose of all issues and all parties. Alas, no. Those claims and issues pertained only to enforcement of the judgment. They did not alter the finality of the judgment at the time it was domesticated and therefore did not extend Moreno’s time to appeal.

No Evidence? No Problem! Court Takes Judicial Notice of Property Records to Dismiss Based on Mootness

Courtney D. Alsobrook v. MTGLQ Investors, LP

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00400-CV (October 26, 2021)

Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), and Garcia

Brent Rubin

        Alsobrook stopped making mortgage payments on her house, and MTGLQ, the mortgagee, gave notice that it planned to foreclose. Alsobrook obtained a temporary restraining order stopping the foreclosure sale, but she never obtained a temporary or permanent injunction stopping future foreclosure proceedings. The trial court eventually granted MGTLQ’s motion for summary judgment. Alsobrook appealed.

        In its response brief on appeal, MTGLQ argued the appeal was moot because Alsobrook’s property had been sold at a foreclosure sale after the trial court entered judgment. But MTGLQ did not file a copy of the foreclosure sale deed or any other tangible proof of the sale. Nevertheless, the Court explained that it had the power to take judicial notice, for the first time on appeal, of facts that are a matter of public record and not subject to reasonable dispute.

        Rockwall County Central Appraisal District’s online records showed that the house was conveyed away from Alsobrook by foreclosure sale and identified someone other than Alsobrook as the current owner. Therefore, the Court took judicial notice of the sale. Because the property at issue had been sold, the Court held Alsobrook’s case had become moot and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits.

It’s Still the Law: Incorporating the AAA Rules Delegates Determination of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator

Holifield v. Barclay Properties, Ltd.

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-21-00239-CV (October 5, 2021)

Justices Schenck (Opinion, linked here), Smith, and Garcia

Ken Carroll

        Barclay built and sold a home to the Holifields. When construction defects allegedly cropped up, the Holifields sent notice of those defects not only to Barclay, but also to others with which Barclay was hoping to do business. Because of that, Barclay sued the Holifields for tortious interference. But the contract between Barclay and the Holifields contained a broad arbitration provision, in which the parties agreed that “any controversy or claim … arising out of or relating to … this Contract [or] … the construction and/or sale of the Property” would be “submitted to binding arbitration with the AAA.” When the Holifields moved to compel arbitration of Barclay’s tortious interference claim, however, the trial court denied that motion. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that “it is for the arbitrator to decide whether Barclay must arbitrate its claim against the Holifields.”

        In addition to being broad in scope, the parties’ arbitration agreement provided that disputes would be arbitrated “in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the AAA.” AAA Construction Rule 9 dictates that the arbitrator “has the power ‘to rule on his or her own jurisdiction.’” As a result, the Court said, the issue of arbitrability was entrusted to the arbitrator, not the trial court. “When, as here, the parties agree to a broad arbitration clause and explicitly incorporate rules empowering the arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, the incorporation serves as clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate such issues to an arbitrator.” In fact, the Court said, “Where the parties’ contract clearly and unmistakably delegates the arbitrability question to the arbitrator, the court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue.”

        Barclays argued that in Jody James Farms v Altman, 547 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018), the Supreme Court of Texas had rejected the principle that incorporation of the AAA rules constituted “clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate” the determination of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Not so, said the Dallas Court. The Supreme Court in Jody James rejected that principle only in the context of an arbitrability dispute between a party that was a signatory to the arbitration agreement and another party that was not. It did not rule on the issue in the context presented here, where both parties had agreed to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator under the AAA rules.

NO IMPLIED LIFTING OF ABATEMENT

Cruz v. Hernandez

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00956-CV (April 23, 2021)

Justices Schenck (Opinion, linked here), Smith, and Garcia

Ken Carroll

In 2012, Cruz was appointed guardian ad litem for three minors in a personal injury case. In 2015, the trial court issued an order abating the case pending resolution of a separate lawsuit against an underinsured-motorist insurance carrier. After the case had lain dormant for about three years, the trial court set a status conference. When Cruz didn’t appear for the conference, the trial court removed him and appointed a new guardian. Months later, in May 2019, Cruz applied for compensation for his services as guardian and, two days later, the trial court signed a final judgment in the case. On Cruz’s motion, the trial court then signed an amended judgment that, among other things, awarded fees both to Cruz and to the new guardian ad litem. Cruz appealed, arguing the trial court erred in the fees it awarded to him, in appointing the new guardian, and in entering judgment—all while the case was still abated. Perhaps surprisingly, the Court of Appeals agreed.

“An abatement is a present suspension of all proceedings in a suit.” “During abatement,” the appeals court explained, “the court and the parties are prohibited from proceeding in any manner[, and] unless otherwise specified in the abatement order, any action taken by the court or the parties during the abatement is a legal nullity.” Prior decisions from the Dallas Court required that, “to end an abatement, … an order of reinstatement must be entered.” Contrary to what one might expect, the Court’s precedent “rejected implied cessation of abatement by the court’s or the parties’ conduct, such as entering a judgment or otherwise proceeding with the case.”

Because no “order of reinstatement” had been entered in this case, all the actions of the parties and the trial court after the 2015 abatement order were “a legal nullity”—even though Cruz had sought or participated in several of those actions and even though the actions logically reflected an understanding by the parties and trial court that the abatement was no longer in effect. Although it acknowledged the waste and delay entailed in its ruling, the Court of Appeals, bound by its own prior decisions, had no choice but to reverse and remand the case to the trial court.

FIRST IMPRESSION: DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS TCHRA PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Tarrant County College District v. Sims

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00351-CV (March 10, 2021)

Justices Schenck (Concurring and Dissenting, here), Smith (Opinion, here), and Garcia

Ken Carroll

In the context of reviewing the denial of a plea to jurisdiction, the Dallas Court of Appeals has held the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) prohibits discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation or transgender status. It is the first court to do so. 

The Court acknowledged that “no Texas state court has addressed the issue of whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited under the TCHRA,” and the parties and trial court had in fact assumed the statute did not do so. But the appeals court noted that a stated “general purpose” of the TCHRA is to “provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the [federal] Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments,” and so it “look[ed] to federal law for guidance.” Until very recently, federal authorities (including the Fifth Circuit) had held Title VII prohibited “sex discrimination—not sexual orientation or transgender discrimination.” But while the Sims case was on appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), holding that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of … sex” does extend to and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. “In order to reconcile and conform the TCHRA with federal anti-discrimination and retaliation laws under Title VII,” the Dallas Court concluded it “must follow Bostock and read the TCHRA’s prohibition on discrimination ‘because of … sex’ as [also] prohibiting discrimination based on an individual’s status as a homosexual or transgender person.”

Justice Schenck filed a separate opinion, concurring in the result (finding jurisdiction in the trial court) but dissenting for a variety of reasons from the majority’s pronouncement extending the scope of the TCHRA. The trial court had not had the opportunity to review the issue in light of Bostock. No party or amicus before the appeals court had addressed the issue “in an adversarial posture”—i.e., after Bostock, they all agreed with the extended scope articulated by the majority. The pronouncement was unnecessary to the determination of jurisdiction, because jurisdiction clearly existed on grounds other than the TCHRA—which Sims had not expressly pleaded, given the state of the law when she filed her lawsuit. And, on the “merits,” the law of Texas in 1983 when the TCHRA was enacted—including statutes that prohibited same-sex marriage and criminalized homosexual conduct—was such that the legislature at that time could not reasonably be understood to have included discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within the prohibitions of the TCHRA or to have envisioned or intended that a change in federal law 40 years later would have that effect on this Texas statute.

YOU SHOULD PROBABLY RESPOND TO A RULE 194 REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

F 1 Construction, Inc. v. Phillip W. Bantz and Marcos Gutierrez

Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00717-CV (January 20, 2021)

Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia (Opinion)

Neil R. Burger

In F 1 Construction, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s take nothing judgment against the plaintiff for its failure to respond to a Rule 194 request for disclosure, specifically the failure to disclose the amount and method of calculating damages.

Both defendants included a Rule 194 request for disclosure in their original answers. But F 1 Construction never responded. The day before trial, one defendant filed a motion to exclude evidence of damages, and the other defendant orally joined the motion at trial. The court granted the motion, excluded evidence of damages, and entered a take nothing judgment.

On appeal, F 1 Construction characterized the ruling as a death penalty sanction under Rule 215. But the Court of Appeals viewed it otherwise. The Court held this case was governed by Rule 193.6, which governs the failure to respond to discovery, rather than Rule 215 and case law construing it. Under Rule 193.6, exclusion of evidence not disclosed in response to a proper discovery or disclosure request is mandatory and automatic absent a showing of (1) good cause or (2) lack of unfair surprise or (3) unfair prejudice. F 1 Construction’s “inadvertence” excuse was not good enough. Therefore, the trial court did not err in excluding F 1’s damages evidence.

Notably, F 1 Construction did not move for a continuance in the trial court, and defendants did not file a brief in the Court of Appeals. Litigants: respond to a request for disclosure or have your evidence barred at trial.

Also of note: Effective January 1, 2021, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to match Federal Rule 26(a) to require parties to make initial disclosures without waiting for a request.