Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): distinguished from Jampole. Here, the appealed court order simply orders “that Plaintiff’s motion to strike designation of Dr. Clifford J. Buckley and Dr. Michael Spebar as experts for Defendants is granted,” and denies plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. The order does not deny the relator the discovery of anything necessary to preserve error, does not prevent the relator from taking the deposition of the doctors involved, and does not prevent the relator from preserving the alleged error for appeal by way of bill of exceptions. In oral argument, the relator conceded that it had not sought, and therefore had not been denied, anything in discovery necessary to preserve error or the taking of the depositions of the doctors. See Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the trial on the merits has not taken 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in order to have the ability to seek mandamus relief regarding compelling a deposition the trial court had to have explicitly denied the motion to compel the deposition (B) holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude testimony of a witness for an alleged sequestration violation where no impermissible harmonization of testimony could be inferred from the witnesss reading of the newspaper in the absence of any evidence that this testimony was based on what he read (C) holding that mandamus will not lie in a complaint founded on alleged abuse of discretion of the trial court in denying certain testimony until the trial court has denied a proper request to take the deposition of the witness (D) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form (E) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible
Output (English): holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude testimony of a witness for an alleged sequestration violation where no impermissible harmonization of testimony could be inferred from the witnesss reading of the newspaper in the absence of any evidence that this testimony was based on what he read