## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 39 4- CV I N R E K I NGS R I DGE HOME OW NE R S R E L AT OR ASS OCI ATI ON, I NC.

----- ----- -- OR I GI NALP R OCE E DI NG

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- R e la t o rK in g s R id g e H o m e o w n e r sA s s o c ia t io n , I n c . ( “ H O A ” ) p e t it io n st h is C ourtf ora w r i tofm and am usco m pl ai ni ng t hatR es ponde nt , t he t r i alj udgeof t h e 3 6 2 n d D is t r ic t C o u rt , D e n t o n C o u n t y , a b u s e d h isd is c r e t io n b yim p r o p e r ly st r i k i ng HO A’ s s ol e e xp e rt w i t ne s s . HO A s e e k s a n or de r di r e c t i ng t he t r i al j udget o va ca t e t hator der . W e c ondi t i on al l y gr antH O A ’ s pet i t i on f orw r i tof
m andam us. P r o s p e rf ile ss u it Pl ai nt i f fPr os per La nd C om pan y, Lt d. ( “Pr os per ”) i s t he dev el ope rofKi ngs R id g e s u b d iv is io n in P la n o , D e n t o n C o u n t y . P r o s p e rf ile d t h e u n d e r ly in g s u itin J a n u a ry2 0 0 4a g a in s td e v e lo p e r sa n d b u ild in g c o n t r a c t o r so fa n a d ja c e n tu p h ill1 ... O t herde f end ant s se t t l ed pr i ort o t he f i l i ng o ft he pet i t i on f orw r i tof

m and am usan d a r e n otdi sc us se d he r ei n. 2 dev el opm entkn ow n a s Ki ngsG at e, al ong w i t h K i ngsG at e l otow ner s Lui s and T e r e s i t a M i g n u c c i , S t e v e n M . a n d J i l l An n F r e e , Ha r ryCr o s b y , a n d He r b e rtD. L o c k e (“D e fe n d a n ts ” ). 1 T h e lo t o w n e rsl i v e o n e l e v a te d l o ts o n th e w e s te rn bou ndar y ofK i ngs G at e, w hi ch abutst he east er n bou ndar y ofK i ngs R i dge. Pr os peral l ege d t hati m pr ove m ent s, i ncl udi ng r et ai ni ng w al l s, bui l tby D ef end ant s on t hei rel eva t ed pr ope rt y i n Ki ngsG at e, ca us ed w at erdr ai nag e r esul t i ng i n dam age t o t he dow nhi l l K i ngs R i dge s ubd i vi si on. Pro sp e r al l eged br ea ch ofa D r ai nag e and Sur f ac e Fl ow A gr ee m entent er ed i nt o be t w ee n pr i or ow ner s ofK i ngs G at e and K i ngs R i d g e , v i ol at i ons oft he T exas W at erC ode, negl i gence, negl i gence perse, nui sance, br each ofcont r act , and t r espass. H O A ow nsa si xt y- t w o- f ootm ai nt ena nceeas em entacr os s t he r ea roft he e a s t e r n lo t s in K in g sR id g e a b u t t in g t h e K in g sG a t e s u b d iv is io n . H O A is
r e s p o n s ib le f o rm a in t a in in g t h e la n d s c a p in g , ir r ig a t io n s y s t e m , a n d m ills a p w a lls
w i t hi n t hatar ea ofl and di r ec t l y be l ow K i ng s G at e. HO A as se rt s, an d D ef end ant s do no td i sp ut e, t hatPr os percu r r ent l y t ak esr es pons i bi l i t y f oran d cov er s t he cos tofm ai nt ena nceoft he ea se m entbutt hat , w hen t he l as toft he l ot s i n Ki ngs R i dg e s ubdi vi si on i s so l d, r es pons i bi l i t y f orl and sc ape , i r r i gat i on, and w al l m ai nt ena ncew i l l ul t i m at el y be com e t hatofH O A an d t he Ki ngsRi dge hom eow ner s.3

D ur i ng di scover y, Pr osper ’ s cor por at e r epr esent at i ve, D avi d W hi t se tt, di sc l os ed i n hi s dep os i t i on t hat Pr os per br ought so m e of i t s cl ai m s on beh al fof HO A, t ha tHO A ha d or a l l y a s s i gn e d i t sc l a i m sf ord a m a ge s t o Pr os pe r i n 2001, and t hatH O A an d Pr os perl at eren t er ed i nt o a w r i t t en agr ee m entdoc um ent i ng th e as sign m e n t, si g n e d i n 2 0 0 5 . P ros p e r pro d u c e d a c o p yo f th e a g ree m e n t t o D ef end ant s i n Novem ber2005 . By t he w r i t t en agr ee m ent , H O A as si gne d “ any and al l s ubs equ ent m one y due or ow i ng t o [ H O A ] and al l cl ai m s, de m and s and ca us esofac t i on ofw hat so eve rki nd w hi ch [ H O A ] m ay hav e orm ay hav e c om e t o have agai nstany per son orpart y . . . ” and r et ai ned a f i ft y per centi nt er est i n t he netr ecover y af t eratt or ney’ s f ees. H O Ai s B rou g h t i n b yD e fen d a n ts O n Apr i l 8, 2005 , t he t r i alco urts i gne d a n a gr ee d L eve l 3 s che dul i ng o rd e r a dd r ess i ng va r i ou s pretr i al de ad l i ne s. T r i al w as i ni t i al l y se tf or Jan ua ry 16, 2006; f or r e a s on s un e xp l a i ne d i n t he r e c or d, i tw a sl a t e rr e s e tf orApr i l 9, 2 0 0 7 . S o m e tw o y e a rs a fter l e a rning o f t h e as sign m e n t of c l a i m s b yH O A to Pr osper , and a w eek bef or e t he t r i al s e tti n g , D ef endan t s f i l ed am ended p l e a d i ngs and a pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on chal l engi ng P r osper ’ s st andi ng to m ai nt ai n i t s sui tb ased o n t he pur port ed assi gnm ent . D ef endan t s ar gued t hat t he w r i t t en as si gnm entw asnotexec ut ed unt i l aft erPr os perhad f i l ed su i tan d aft erl i m i t at i onsha d r un a nd w asi nef f ec t i ve t o t r ansf eral l ors om e o ft he cl ai m s.4

Pr osperr espond ed w i t h a pl ea i n a b a tem e n t , cont endi ng t hatbecause D e fe n d a n ts w e re n o t p a rti e sto th e a s s i g n m e n t, th e yl a c k e d a n yj u s ti c ia b le i nt er es tt o c hal l eng e i t s val i di t y oref f ec t i ve dat e. O n Apr i l 3 , 2 007 , dur i ng t he hea r i ng o n Pr os per ’ s pl ea i n a bat em ent , Pr os pers ugge st ed t hatt he que st i on r ai se d r ega r di ng t he ef f ec t i ve dat e o ft he as si gnm entcreate d a “ def ec tof part i es ” bec aus e o ne oft he part i est o t he con t r ac t , H O A , w asnotbe f or e t he court . D ef endan t s ul t i m at el y agr eed t o j oi n H O A . The t r i al cou rtt hen r ul ed t hatH O A bei ncl ude d a s a p art y. Def end ant s agr ee d t o pr epa r e t he or deran d t o ha ve H O As erved i m m edi at el y. The t r i als ett i ng w asca nce l l ed by a g re e m e n t. O n A pr i l 13 , 20 07 , D ef endan t s f i l ed t hei r noti ce of j oi nderofH O A as a p a rtyi n w h i c h th e ys ta te d , “A t a p re tri a l h e a ri n g o n A p ri l 3 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e C o u rt o r der ed [ H O A ] be j oi ned as a part y t o t hi s sui tt o be gi ven t he opp ort uni t y to p r o t e c tit sin t e r e s t , ifa n y , in t h e c la im sb e in g a s s e rt e d a g a in s tD e f e n d a n t sin th i s s u i t. ” T h e p ra y e r o f th e n o ti c e g e n e ral l yreq u e ste d tha t H O A b e cit e d to appearas a part y pl ai nt i f f and t hat i t “f i l e such pl eadi ng as i s pr opert o expr ess i t s pos i t i on a s t o t he cl ai m s bei ng a ss ert ed aga i ns tD ef end ant s i n t hi s su i t , an d f orsuch ot heran d f urt herrel i efas m ay be pr oper . ” H O A w as served on M ay 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d f ile d a g e n e r a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e jo in d e ro n J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , in it ia lly d e n y i n g tha t i t w a s a p rop e r pa rt yb e c a u se i t ha d as sign e d a l l o f i ts c l a i m s to P ro s p e r.5

Fol l ow i ng j oi nde rofH O A , D ef end ant s beg an se rvi ng HO A w i t h di sc ove ry, i ncl udi ng r equ es t s f ordi sc l os ur e o n J ul y 1 7 , 2007 , an d 107 r equ es t s f or pr od uc t i on on Augu s t 24, 2007; Def e nd a nt s c ol l e c t i ve l y s e rve d m or e t ha n 100 a d d i t i o n a l r e q u e s t sf o rpr od uc t i o n o n HOAo n De c e mb e r2 7 , 2 0 0 7 . On F e b ru a ry1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , D e fe n d a n ts n o ti c e d a n d to o kth e d e p o s i ti o n o f H O A ’s cor por at e r epr esent at i ve on 1 18 num ber ed t opi cs. H O AA s s e rt sC l a i ms a n d D e s i g n a te sa n E x p e rt O n Ja nua ry 24, 200 8, H O A am end ed i t s pl ea di ngs t o as se rtaf f i r m at i ve c l a i m s f ord e c l a r a t ory a nd i nj un c t i ver e l i e f a ga i ns tDef e nd a nt s . On J a nu a ry 25, 2 0 0 8 , H O A re t a in e d e n g in e e rG a ryP e t t ita sa p o t e n t ia l e x p e rtw it n e s s . P e t t it c om pl e t e d h i se x p e rtr e p o rto n Ap r i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 . On M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , HOA a m e nded i t s r esponse t o r equest s f or di scl osur es, desi gnati ng Pett i t a s i ts exp ertw i t nes s on t he i ss uesof ca us at i on of t he w at er dam age and co r r ec t i ve m easur es t o avoi d f ut ur e i nj ur y, and pr odu ced Pett i t ’ s r eportt o D ef endan t s. De f e n d a n t sM o v et oDi s mi s sHOA a n d toS tri k eH O A ’sE x p e rt O n J u n e9 , 2 0 0 8 , D e fen d a n ts m o v e d to s tr i k e H O A ’s ex p e rt . D e fen d a n ts assert ed t hatH O A w as governed by def aul tLevel 2 di scover y deadl i nes under
w hi ch HOA h a d n o t t i m e l y d e s i g n a t e d i t s e x p e rt a n d , f u rt h e r , t h a tt he d e s ig n a ti o n w a s a d i sg u i se d b a c k d o o r attem p t byco -pl a i n ti ff P ros p e r t o des i gna t e a n e xpe rtf ort he f i r stt i m e, co nt r ary t o t he dea dl i ness etby t he2 ... Fol l ow i ng H O A ’ s desi gnati on, Pr osperm oved forl eave t o cr ossdes i gna t e Pe t t i tasi t s exp ert , t o w hi ch D ef end ant s obj ec t ed.

3 ... T h e tri a l co urtst at ed on A ugu st29 , “So w e j ustneed t o r eset ever yt hi ng t hat w as set f or yest er day and t oday t o w her e eve ryb o d ycan pr ope r l y behe ar d a nd go fr om ther e. So w hatI ’ m goi ng t o do i s eve ryt hi ng t h a t w a s d is c u s s e d y e s t e r d a yis– w e ’r eg o in g t o re s e ta ll t h a ta n d h a v e ita ll h e a rd .”

4 ... The Oct obe r20, 2008 t r i als ett i ng w aspos t pone d by t he cou rtupon t he f i l i ng of H O A ’ s pet i t i on f orw r i tofm andam us. 6 agr ee d L eve l 3 s che dul i ng or der , w hi ch had ex pi r ed. 2Byl et t ero fJ ul y 30, 2 0 0 8 , H O A ten d e red P e tti t f o r his d e p o sit i o n , su g g e sti n g se v e ral alt e rna te dat es . Def end ant s di d notr es pond. O n August22, 2008 , D ef end ant s f i l ed a pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on chal l engi ng H O A ’ s st andi ng, contendi ng t hat H O A had ef f ec t i vel y a ss i gne d al l ofi t s cl ai m s t o Pr os per . D ef end ant s agr ee d t o r es ett he t r i a l a ga i n, t hi st i m ef orOct ob e r20, 2008 . T ri a lC o u rt S tri k e sH O A ’sE x p e rt Th e t r i al co urth el d f ourd ays o fh ear i ngs on D ef endan t s’ m ot i on t o st r i ke H O A ’ s exp ertan d t hei rpl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on on A ugus t28 and 29, an d on Se pt e m be r18 a nd 29, 2008 , 3aft erw hi ch t he t r i al courtdeni e d D ef endan t s’ pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on and r ef used t o di sm i ss HO A f r om t he sui t , butr ul ed t hat HOA h a d n o c l a i ms a n d s t r u c kP e t t i t , HOA ’ ss o l e e x p e rtwi t n e s s . HO A t her eupo n f i l ed t hi s pet i t i on f orw r i tofm andam us. 47 M a n d a m u sS ta n d a rd ofRev i ew M andam us w i l l i ssue t o cor r ecta di scover y or deri ft he or derconst i t ut es a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n a n d th e re i sn o a d e q u a te re m e d yb ya p p e a l . Inre C oloni a l Pi p el i n eCo . , 9 6 8 S . W . 2 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 1 ( T ex . 1 9 9 8 ) ( ori g. pr oc ee di ng ); W al ker v. Pa cker, 8 2 7 S .W .2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 2 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ). A cl ea rabus e of di sc r et i on w ar r ant i ng cor r ec t i on by m and am us occ ur s w hen a c o u rt’sd e c i s i o n i sw i th o u t b a s i so r g u i d i n g p ri n c i p l e so f l a w . See I n re Sei gel, 19 8 S . W . 3d 21 , 26 ( Tex . A pp. — El Paso 2 00 6, or i g. pr oceedi ng) . W i t h r espect to re s o l u ti o n o f fa c tu a l i s s u e so r m a tte rsc o m m i tte d to th e tri a l c o u rt’s di sc r et i on, t he r evi ew i ng courtm ay nots ubs t i t ut e i t s j udgm entf ort hatoft he tri a l c o u rt. W

al ker, 8 2 7 S .W .2 d a t 8 3 9

– 4 0 . T h e re l a to rm u s t th e re fo re es t abl i sh t hat t he t r i al cou rt cou l d r ea so nab l y hav e r ea che d onl y onede ci si on. Id. a t 8 4 0 . E v e n ift h e re v ie w in g c o u rtw o u ld h a v e d e c id e d t h e is s u e d if f e r e n t ly , it ca nnotdi st urb t he tr i alco urt ’ s dec i si on un l es s i ti s sh ow n t o bear bi t r ary a nd
u n re a s o n a b l e . Id. W i t h r espectt o a t r i al court ’ s det er m i n a ti o n o f the l egal p ri n c i p l e s c o n tro l l i n g itsru l i n g , th e s ta n d a rd ism u c h l e s sd e fe re n ti a l . Id. A t r i al c o u rth a s n o “d i sc reti o n ” i n d e term i n i n g w h a t th elaw is o r a p p l y i n g the l a w to th e fa c ts . Id. Thu s, a cl earfai l ur e b y t he t r i al courtt o anal yze orappl y t he l aw c o rr e c tl yw i ll c o n sti tu te a n ab u se o f disc reti o n , a n d m a yres u l t i n ap p e l l a te re v e rs a l b ye x tra o rd i n a ryw ri t. Id.5 ... R u l e 1 9 0 .3 d e fi n e s th e Le v e l 2 d i sc o v e ry p e ri o d an d p rov i d e s th a t,

u n l e s s a s u itis g o v e rn e d b ya d i s c o v e ryc o n tro l p l a n u n d e r R u l e s1 9 0 .2 ( $50 , 000 or l es s) or 190 . 4 ( di sc ove ry con t r ol pl an by or der ) , di sc ove ry m us tbe con duc t ed w i t hi n a di sc ove ry pe r i od be gi nni ng w hen s ui ti s f i l ed and co nt i nui ng, exc eptf orf am i l y codecas es , unt i l t he ea r l i eroft hi rt y da ysbe f or e t r i alorni ne m onths aft er t he ear l i eroft he f i r stor al deposi t i on ort he due date oft he f i r st re s p o n s e to w ri tte n d i s c o v e ry . T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 9 0 .3 (a ), (b )(1 )(B ). 8 C ontent i ons oft he Part i es H O A c o n te n d sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n i f i t s tru c kH O A ’s exp ertde si gna t i on asunt i m el y un derLe vel2 oft he di sc ove ry r ul esbe ca us e t he case w as gover ned bya Level 3 di scover y pl an t hathad expi r ed bef or e i tw as j oi ned i n t he su i ts o t ha tn o deadl i ne w asi n pl ac e e i t herf ordi sc ove ry orf or d e sign a ti o n o f its e x p e rtan d n o tr i a l d a te h a d b e e n res e t at the ti m e o f i ts expertdesi gnati on. H O A poi nt s out , r egar di ng t he l ack ofany deadl i nes, t hat D ef end ant s se ntnum er ousdi sc ove ry r equ es t s aft ert heyj oi ned H O A asa part y. H O A arg u e s th a t i t h a d n o ad v a n c e n o ti c e o r w a rning o f an yd e a d l i n e u n ti l i ts des i gna t i on w ass t r uckan d t hatt he cou rtga ve no r ea so n ot hert han t he d e s i g n a ti o n w a s “ l a te ” a n d n o t “ fa i r.”H O A th u su rg e sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n b ys tri k i n g th e d e s i g n a ti o n . De f e n d a n t sc o n t e n d e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u rt , a swe l l a si n t h i sc o u rt , t h a tHOA def aul t ed t o t he Le vel2 di sc ove ry pe r i od be ca us e HO A ne verr equ es t ed or obt ai ned a Le vel3 di sc ove ry pl an agr ee d upo n byt he part i esoror der ed by t he t r i al courtundert he pr et r i al di scover y r ul es. 5 T h e re fo re , a c c o rding to D ef endan t s, H O A w as gover ned byt he ni ne- m onth di scover y per i od un derLevel6 ... S ee D aniel s v. Y

ancey , 17 5 S . W . 3d 889, 893– 94 ( Tex. A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); Coastal Mart , I nc. v. Her

nandez , 76 S . W . 3d 6 9 1 , 6 9 9 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d i s m ’d b ya g r .); see al so L itch en b urgv. Co nm e d Co rp . , No. 01- 07- 00230

- CV , 2008 W L5982 67, a t*2 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] M ar . 6, 2008 , pe t . de ni ed) ( m em . op. ) ( not i ng t hatge ner al l y, a t r i al r es ett i ng has t he ef f ec t ofnul l i f yi ng a di sc ove ry de adl i ne se tby a d ock etco nt r ol or deri ft he t r i ali s r es ett o a da t e m or e t han t hi rt y da ys f r om t he i ni t i al t r i al dat e) . W e not e t hat t hes e ca se s w er e d ec i ded be f or e t he S u p re m e C o u rt re c e n tl yh e l d th a ta l th o u g h d e a d l i n e sfo r d e s i g n a ti n g e x p e rt w i t nes se s unde rf or m erpr et r i aldi sc ove ry r ul esw er e f l ui d and depe nde d on t he t r i al da t e, t hos e d ea dl i nesno l onge rf l uct uat e w i t h t he cha ngeofa t r i als ett i ng butar e det er m i ned by t he di sc ove ry per i od appl i ca bl e t o t he ca seunde rcu r r ent 9 2 , w h i c h D e fe n d a n ts c o n te n d e n d e d o n M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 8 . U n d e r D e fe n d a n t’s th e o ry, H O A w a s r e q u i red to d e sign a te i ts e x p e rtb yF e b rua ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , n i n e ty d a y s b e f o r e t h e e n d o ft h e n in e -m o n t h L e v e l 2 d is c o v e ryp e r io d , w h ic h itd id notdo. Def end ant s f urt herar guet hatH O A f ai l ed t o show good ca us e f ort he unti m el y desi gnati on or t hat t he unti m el y desi gnati on di d not unfai r l y pr ej udi ce o rs u rp ri s e D e fe n d a n ts . S ee Te x . R. Ci v . P . 19 3. 6( b ) . Ad d i t i o n a l l yor al t er nat i vel y, D ef enda n t s ar gue t hatH O A and Pr osperar e one and the s am e bec aus e HO A ’ s cl ai m s w er e e f f ec t i vel y a ss i gne d t o Pr os per , s o HO A s houl d be bo un d byPr os pe r ’ se xp e rtd e s i gn a t i on d e a dl i ne , w hi c h e xp i r e d i n 2005. H O A r es pondst hatt her e i s no ba si s and no a ut hor i t y f ort he con t ent i on t hati tw as gover ned byLevel 2 w hen t he c a se as t o al l ot herpart i es w as gove r ned by Le vel 3. H O A f urt her ar gue s t hat t he t r i alco urt ’ s con t i nua nceof t hec a s e f ore i gh t e e n m on t hsand r e s e t t i ng o ft het r i a l d a t et o Apr i l 2007 vi t i at ed t he sc hed ul i ng or deran d nul l i f i ed al l de adl i nest her ei n. 6H O A al soru l e s . Fort Brown V i l l as III Condo. A ss’

n, I nc. v. Gi

l lenwater, 285 S. W . 3d 879, 8 8 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 9 ). 10 contends t hat , because t he di scover y deadl i nes expi r ed pr i ort o i t s bei ng j oi ned i n t he su i t , good ca us e exi st ed f or t he t r i al cou rtt o m odi f y t he di sc ove ry c ont r ol p la n in t h isc a s e . A t r ia l c o u rt“ m a ym o d if ya d is c o v e ryc o n t r o l p la n a ta n yt im e a nd m us td o s o w he n t hei nt e r e s tofj us t i c e r e qu i r e s . ” Te x. R. C i v. P. 190. 5; Bro wnv. Bro wn , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d 7 4 5 , 7 5 0 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ). Fi nal l y, H O A cont ends t hatt he t r i al co urtd i d not st r i ke i t s expertw i t ness because i t w as unt i m el y but, r at her , because i tr ul ed t hatH O A had no cl ai m s. T h a t i s , H O A a rg u e sth a t, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n yp ro p e r m o ti o n , th e t ri a l c o u rt i m pr ope r l y i nt er pr et ed t he w r i t t en as si gnm enta s ef f ec t i ve t o t r ans f eral l of H O A ’sc l a i m sto P ro s p e r, l e a v i n g H O A w it h n o c l a i m so n w h i c h e x p e rt te s ti m o n yw o u l d b e re l e v a n t. A n a ly s is O v e r a y e a r a fte r a g re e i n g to b ri n g H O A i n to th e s u i t a n d a fte r d i s c o v e ry by D ef endan t s as descr i bed abo ve, as w el l as aft er f i l i ng nu m er ous am ended p l e a d i n g s a n d o th e r d i sc o v e ry, D e fen d a n ts m o v e d to s tr i k e H O A ’s ex p e rtas l a te a n d as se rt e d i ts p l e a to th e juri sd i c ti o n , c l a i m i n g tha t H O A h a d n o sta n d i n g to b e a p a rtyto th e s u i t b e c a u s e o f i ts a s s i g n m e n t o f c l a i m sto P ro s p e r.11

O n A u g u st 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , th e fi rst d a y o f th e h e a ri n g o n D e fen d a n ts’ plea to t he j ur i sdi ct i on and m ot i on t o stri k e H O A ’ s expert , t he t r i al courtdeni ed D ef end ant s’ pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on, s t at i ng, W el l , t he t hi ng i s, i s [ si c] I m ay hav e b ee n w r on g w i t h m y st at em entt hey ’ ve gota dog i n t he hunt , butI ’ m goi ng t o be c o n sisten t. S o I m a yb e co n s is te n tl yw ron g . A n d I ’m g o i n g to den y t he m ot i on f ort he pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on. I br oughtt hem i n. I ’ l l ke ep t hem i n. T h e n the tr i a l co u rtas k e d : “W h yi s i t t h a t I sh o u l d all o w the m to b ri n g i n a l a te desi gnati on of an expert ?” The t r i al courtth e n h ear d ar gum enton w het her H O A ha d t i m el y de si gna t ed i t s exp ertw i t nes s. Att he con cl us i on ofar gum ent th a t d a y , th e tri a l c o u rt a n n o u n c e d :

[ C ourt ] : I ’ m goi ng t o gr ant t he def endan t s’ m ot i on t o st r i ke th e e x p e rt.

. . . . [H O A c o u n s e l]: Y o u rH o n o r , m a yI? I n e e d s o m e t im e t om or r ow , t hen , t o m ak e a r ec or d. [ C ourt ] : O ka y. [ H O A counsel ] : I t ’ s a Level3 schedu l i ng case. [ C ourt ] : I ’ m s or ry? [H O A c o u n s e l]: L e v e l 2 d e a d lin e sd o n o ta p p ly . T h e D a n ie ls case t hatshe ci t ed i s a 20 05 case. [C o u rt]: W e l l - - [ H O A counsel ] : I t ’ s aft ert hese ‘ 99 am endm ent s.7 ... The t r i al courtal so r ul ed t hati tw asde nyi ng Pr os per ’ s m ot i on f or

l ea ve t o c r os s- des i gna t e t he exp ert . Pr os perhas notchal l eng ed t hatr ul i ng by se e k i n g m a n d a m u s re l i e f. 12

[ C ourt ] : I tseem s t o m e you shou l d have — w hen yo u hi r ed th e m an d d i d i t, y o u s h o u l d h a v e d o n e i t t h e n rath e r t h a n w a i t, w a i t, w a i t, w a i t, w a i t a n d d o i t. A f t erf urt herar gum entr ega r di ng t he t i m el i nes s oft he des i gna t i on, t he t r i al courtagai n st at ed i tw as goi ng t o gr antD ef endan t s’ m ot i on t o st r i ke b e c a u s e i t w a s“ to o l a te i n th e g a m e .” 7 O n t h e s e c o n d d a yo ft h e h e a r in g s , a ft e rf u rt h e ra r g u m e n tb ya ll c o u n s e l, t he t r i al co urtal l ow ed coun sel f orH O A t o part i al l y m ake hi s bi l l ofexcept i ons. C o u n s e l te s ti fi e d a sto th e ti m e re q u i re d to fa m i l i a ri z e h i m s e l f w i th th e fo u ryea r - ol d c as e a nd i t s vol um i nousf i l es , hi s su r pr i sean d l ac k o fad van cew ar ni ng t hatD ef endan t s cl ai m ed a Level 2 dead l i ne appl i ed t o H O A ’ s expert i n a Level 3 c a s e o rt h a th is d e s ig n a t i o n w a su n t im e ly , h isin a b ilit yt o m e a n in g f u lly p a rt i c i p a te w i th o u t t h e ex p e rt , a n d h o w ex p e rttes tim o n yw a s n e c e ss a ry to est abl i s h c a us a t i on a nd t o pr ot e c tHO A’ si nt e r e s t . Be f or e c ou ns e l h ad
com pl et ed m ak i ng hi s bi l l , t he t r i al cou rt i nt er r upt ed t hat he w ant ed t o r es ett he hea r i ng f ora f ul l he ar i ng a s he had be en r us hed t he pr evi ousda y. O n t he t hi r d day ofar gum ent s, on Se pt em ber18, 2008 , t he part i esan d t he t r i al courtr evi ew ed t he r ecor d oft he pr evi ous hear i ngs. A ft erst i l l f urt her13

a rgu m e n t r e g a rding ke e p i n g H O A i n th e su i t, D e fen d a n ts c o n ti n u e d to d i sp u te t h e e f f e c t iv e d a t e o ft h e a s s ig n m e n t . H O A a r g u e d t h a tt h e a s s ig n m e n ts h o u ld be i nt er pr et ed t o c ove ronl y c l ai m s f orpa stda m age s, notf ut ur e c l ai m s f or i n j u n c ti v e a n d d e c l a ra to ryre l i e f o n b e h a l f o f th e h o m e o w n e rs . T h e tri a l c o u rt al so que st i one d w het hert he as si gnm entcover ed f ut ur e c l ai m s butan nounc ed: “I thi nk t hatw as t he r i ght t hi ng t o do [ t o br i ng i n H O A ] . I t hi nk t hatI di d m ake
a m is t a k e w h e n I s a id t h e y h a v e a n in t e r e s t .” T h e t r ia l c o u rt s t a t e d h is
c o n c l u s i o n t h a th e wa sg o i n g t o d e n y t h e mo t i o n t o d i s mi s sb u tp r e v e n tHOA fro m b ri n g i n g c l a i m sth e yd o n o t h a v e . W i th re g a rd to h i sp re v i o u sru l i n g g ra n ti n g th e m o ti o n to s tri k e H O A ’s exp ertw i t nes s asunt i m el y, t he t r i alco urts t ated : “I w i t hdr ew . . . m y r ul i ng o n t h e m o t io n t o s t r ik e w h e n I r e s e tt h e h e a r in g f o rt o d a y . S o a tt h isp o in tin ti m e th e re ’sn o t a ru l i n g o n th e m o ti o n to s tri k e .”T h e c o u rt a g re e d w i th H O A ’s
cou ns el t hatH O A ca nnotbe hel d t o t he dea dl i nesunde rt he Le vel3 s che dul i ng or dert hatha d a l r ea dy p as se d be f or e HO A w asad ded asa part y. I ns t ea d, t he t r i al courtr ul ed t hatH O A coul d not pr osecut e cl ai m s t hati tdi d not ow n; t hus, i tco ul d notde si gna t e a n e xpe rt t o pr os ec ut e t hos e cl ai m s t hati tdi d notow n bec aus e t he t r i alco urt“j us t[ di d not ] t hi nk [ i tw as] f ai r . ” O n t he f ourt h da y, H O A c o m p le t e d it sb ill.14

The w r i t t en or der st r i ki ng H O A ’ s exp ert doe s nots t at e t he gr oundsupon
w hi ch i tw asgr ant ed, n ordi d t he t r i alco urten t erf i ndi ngsoff ac tan d concl usi ons ofl aw . A f t ercar ef ul st udy oft he r ecor d, w e concl ude t hatt he t r i al
cou rts t r uckH O A ’ s exp ertbeca us e i tde t er m i ned t hatH O A ha d no cl ai m s, not because t he d e si gnati on w as unt i m el y. H ow ever , w e m ustupho l d a t r i al
cou rt ’ s r ul i ng on an y l ega l t heo ry pr ope r l y be f or e i t , eve n i f t he t r i alco urtga ve a n i n c o rre c t re a s o n f o r itsru l i n g . S e eInreWel l s, 252 S. W . 3d 439, 446 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2008 , or i g. proce edi ng) ( ci t i ng G ua ran ty Co un ty Mut. I ns . Co. v. Reyna , 7 0 9 S .W .2 d 6 4 7 , 6 4 8 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 )) . T h e r e f o r e , w e w ill
a d d res s b o th p o ss i b l e g rou n d s fo r t h e tr i a l c o u rt ’s o rde r g ran ti n g the m o ti o n to stri k e H O A ’s ex p e rt . Ti m el i nes s ofExp ertD es i gna t i on T h e t r ia l c o u rto b s e rv e d , a n d n o p a rt yd is p u t e d , t h a tt h e c a s e w a sin “l i m bo” as t o any deadl i nes because al l deadl i nes set f ort h i n t he Level 3 agr eed
sc hed ul i ng or derha d e xpi r ed l ong b ef or e H O A w as add ed asa new pa rt y. D ef end ant s ar guet hatH O A f ai l ed t o m ovef ora Le vel3 s che dul i ng or deran d, t h e re fo re , d e fa u l te d to th e L e v e l 2 n i n e -m o n th d i s c o v e ryp e ri o d . S eeTe x. R. C i v . P . 1 9 0 .3 (a ) (“U n l e s sa s u itisg o v e rn e d b ya d i s c o v e ryc o n tro l p l a n . . . d i s c o v e rym u s t b e c o n d u c te d i n a c c o rd a n c e w i th th i ss u b d i v i s i o n .” ). W e decl i ne D ef endan t s’ i nvi t at i on t o hol d t hatH O A d ef aul t ed t o t he Level 2 ni ne-15

m on t h de a dl i new he n t heca s e a nd a l l o t he rp a rt i e sw e r e g ov e r ne d byL e ve l 3. Co mp a re T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 9 0 .3 (b )(1 ) (ti m e l i m i ta ti o n s fo r d i s c o v e r yb yru l e ),
with T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 9 0 .4 (b ) (ti m e l i m i ta ti o n sb yo rd e r o f c o u rt). W h e n a tri a l c o u rt d o e sn o t s ig n a n o rd e r a d o p ti n g a L e v e l 3 d i s c o v e ry c o n t r o l p la n , t h e d e f a u ltd is c o v e rylim it a t io n so fL e v e l 1 (w h ic h d o e sn o ta p p ly her e) or Le vel 2 appl y. See A l len v. United of

O m ahaLif

e I ns . Co. , 236 S. W . 3d 31 5, 32 6 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 7, pet . deni ed) . H ow ever , h er e the t r i al
courtdi d si gn an orderadopti ng a Level 3 di scover y contr o l p l a n f ort he case b e fo re H O A ’sj o i n d e r. A l th o u g h th e d e a d l i n e si n th a t o rd e r h a d e x p ire d , w e di sa gr eew i t h Def end ant s t hatonepa rt y c an be gove r ned by a di f f er ent di scover y l evel t han otherpart i es i n a case. Rul e 19 0. 1 exp l i ci t l y st at es t hat “[ e] very case m u s tb e g o v e r n e d b ya d is c o v e ryc o n t r o l p la n a sp r o v id e d in t h is R ul e. ” Tex. R. C i v. P. 19 0. 1 ( em phasi s added) . Si m i l ar l y, Ru l e 19 0. 3 st at es t hat , unl es s a “ su i t ” i s gove r ned by a L eve l 1 or3 di sc ove ry pl an, i tm us tbe gove r ned by Le vel2. Tex . R. Ci v. P. 190. 3( a). D i sc ove ry c ont r ol pl ans t her ef or e a ppl y t o “ca se s”and “s ui t s, ” notpart i es . Ther e i s no pr ovi si on i n t he
r ul es , norha ve D ef end ant s pr ovi ded an y c as e h ol di ng, t hats om e p art i esi n a
m ul t i

- part y case ar e gover ned byLevel 2 w hi l e o t herp art i es i n t he sam e case a re g o v e rn e d b yL e v e l 3 . A p p lic a ti o n o f d i ffe re n t d i s c o v e rya n d e x p e rt d e a d lin e s u n d e rd if f e r e n td is c o v e ryle v e lst o v a r io u sp a rt ie sin a m u lt i-p a rt ys u it8 ... Rul e 19 5. 2 gove r nsdeadl i nesf ordesi gna t i ng expe rt s butpr ovi desno

enl i ght enm ent . I t m er el y pr ovi des , asr el eva nthe r e, t hatal l ex pert s t es t i f yi ng fo r a p a rtys e e k i n g a ffir m a ti v e re l i e f m u s t b e d e s i g n a te d b yn i n e tyd a y sb e fo re th e e n d o f “ th e d i s c o v e ryp e ri o d .”T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 9 5 .2 (a ).

9 ... T e x a sR u le o fC i v i l P ro c e d u re 3 9 (a ) g o v e rn sj o i n d e r o f n e c e s s a ry part i es: P e r s o n st ob eJ o in e d ifF e a s ib le . A p e rso n w h o i s s u bj e c t t o s e rvi c e o fp r oc e s ssh a l l be j oi ne d a sa pa rt y i n t heac t i on . . . i f( 2) he cl ai m s an i nt er estr el at i ng t o t he subj ectoft he act i on and i s so si t uat ed t hatthe di sposi t i on of t he act i on i n hi s absence m ay ( i ) as a pr a c ti c a l m at t eri m pai rori m pede hi s abi l i t y t o pr ot ectt hat i nt er es t. . . . I fhes houl d j oi n a s a p l ai nt i f fbutr ef us est o do so , h e m a yb e m a d e a d e fe n d a n t, o r, i n a p ro p e r c a s e , a n i n v o l u n ta ry p l a i n ti ff. T e x . R . C i v . P . 3 9 (a ). 16 w oul d cr eat e u nacceptabl e conf usi on and pr ol i f er at i on of di scover y di sput es as t hi s case i l l ust r at es. 8 M or eov er , t he ni ne- m ont h di sc ove ry pe r i od f ora Le vel2 ca seha d l ong si nceex pi r ed. A Leve l 2 di sc ove ry pe r i od be gi ns“ w hen s ui ti s f i l ed”an d
c o n t i n u e s u n t i l t h e e a r l i e r o f t h i rt y d a y s b e f o r e t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l orni ne
m o n th s a fter t h efi rst ora l d e p o sit i o n o r t h e d u e d a te o f t h e fi rst r e sp o n se to
w r i t t e n di s c ov e ry. Te x. R. Ci v. P. 190. 3( b) ( 1) . Th i ss ui tw a sf i l e d i n 2004,
overt w o year s bef or e H O A w as added as a part y i n 20 07 . H O A w as j oi ned as
a n i n v o l u n taryp l a i n ti ff; 9i t s j oi nderw as nott he f i l i ng of a new “sui t ” t hat
r est art ed a Level 2 di scover y per i od. C ontr ary t o D ef endan t s’ posi t i on, t he t r i al10 ... HO A al s o c om pl a i nst ha tt het r i a l c ou rts ho ul d no th a vep e r m i t t ed

D e fen d a n ts to trea t i t a s o n e a n d th e s a m e p a rt ya s P ros p e r, w i th n o se p a rate se tofde adl i nes . Thi s com pl ai ntgoe s t o t he m eri t s oft he i ss ue oft he assi gnm ent ’ s val i di t y and br eadt h and i s subsum ed by H O A ’ s cont ent i on t hat t he t r i al co urter r ed by s t r i ki ng t he w i t nes s on t he gr ound t hatH O A h ad no c l a i ms , wh i c h wea d d r e s sb e l o w. 17 c o u rt c o u l d n o t h a v e f o u n d t h a t th e d u e d a te o f th e f i rs t re s p o n s e t o d i s c o v e ry se ntby D ef end ant s aft erH O A w asj oi ned t r i gge r ed t he st art oft he dea dl i ne by
w hi c h HOA mus t h a v e d e s i g n a t e d i t s e x p e rt . W e c o n c l u d e t h a t HOA d i d not f ai l t o t i m el y desi gnate i t s expertbased on a Level 2 di scover y deadl i ne because a Level 2 di scover y deadl i ne w as notappl i cabl e t o t hi s case and t hatt he t r i al
cou rtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on t o t he ext entt hati tst r uckt he exp ertbe ca us e t he desi gnati on w as “l at e” i n not com pl yi ng w i t h Level 2 dead l i nes. 10 O n t he ot h e r hand , t he pr evi ous Level 3 schedu l i ng or derhad never app l i ed t o H O A , a nd H O A ha d no dea dl i ne i n pl ac e a ft erw hi ch i tco ul d not desi gnate an expert , nordi d i thave any di scover y per i od i n pl ace dur i ng w hi ch i tcoul d do so. H O A coul d have m oved f or a new orm odi f i ed schedul i ng or der
w i th d e a d l i n e s to all o w furth e r di sc o v e ry a n d d e s ig n a tio n o f ex p e rt s, b u t w e need no tdeci de w het herH O A ’ s expertdesi gnati on w as som ehow r ender ed unti m el y by H O A ’ s f ai l ur e to obt ai n a new orm odi f i ed Level 3 schedu l i ng or der11 ... N o r di d the tr i a l co u rtev i d e n tl yco n side r en teri n g s u c h an o rde r on i ts

o w n m o ti o n . SeeTex. R. Ci v. P . 1 9 0 . 4 ( a) ( t he t r i alco urt“ m ay, on i t s ow n i ni t i a t i ve , ” or de rt ha tt heca s e pr oc e e d un de ra di s c ov e ry c on t r olpl a n) ; Te x. R. C iv . P . 1 9 0 .5 (t h e t r ia l c o u rt“ m a ym o d if ya d is c o v e ryc o n t r o l p la n a ta n yt im e and m ustd o s o w h e n th e i n te re s t o f j u s ti c e re q u i re s ” ) (e m p h a s i sa d d e d ). 18 s i n c e D e fe n d a n ts l i k e w i s e fa i l e d t o m o v e fo r s u c h a n o rd e r. 11 Cert ai nl y, t he bett erpr ac t i ce w oul d ha ve bee n f oral l pa rt i es , upon H O A ’ s j oi nde r , t o ha ve su b m i tted to th e tr i a l co u rta m o d i fi e d o r n e w ag ree d sc h e d u l i n g o rde r t o e s t a b lis h a n e w d is c o v e ryp e r io d a n d d e a d lin e s . In d e e d , t h e c o n f u s io n in t h is
ca sear i se s f r om t he f ac tt hatt he pr evi ouss che dul i ng or derha d e xpi r ed; t he p a rti e s p ro c e e d e d w i th d i s c o v e ry w i th o u t re g a rd to th e fa c t th a t th e i r d i s c o v e ry c u to ff h a d p a s s e d a n d w i th o u t s e e k i n g a n e w o r m o d i fi e d s c h e d u l i n g o rd e r. Fort hi s r ea so n, ev en i fH O A ’ s des i gna t i on ofi t s ex pertw ass om eho w
u n t im e lyb e c a u s e itd id n o to b t a in a L e v e l 3 d is c o v e r yp e r io d w it h in w h ic h it
cou l d de si gna t e a n e xpe rt , w e c onc l ude t hat t he t r i al cou rtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by i m pl i ci t l y f i ndi ng t hatH O A f ai l ed t o m ee t i t s bur den of es t abl i sh i ng l ac k o f
u n fa i r s u rp ri s eo r p rej u d i c e . See Bel l i no v. Com m ’

n f or La w yer Di sci pl i ne , 124 S . W . 3d 38 0, 38 4 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 2 0 0 3 , p e t . deni ed) ( hol di ng t her e i s an i m pl i ci tf i ndi ng of goo d cause and no unfai r sur pr i se i n l at e di scl osur e ofw i t ness
w h e n t h e tri a l c o u rt p e rm i ts th e w i tn e s sto te s ti fy ); Cap ita l Me tro . T

ransp. A u th . v. Cen t. o f T en n . R y. & Na vi

ga ti o nCo ., 114 S . W . 3d 573, 583 ( Tex.19

A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (fi n d i n g u n fa i r s u rp ri s e i m p l i c i t i n tri a l c o u rt’s
ru l i n g ). R ul e 19 3. 6 p r ohi bi t s a part y f r om o f f er i ng evi dence no tt i m el y di scl osed i n a di scover y r esponse “unl ess t he courtf i nds t hat : ( 1) ther e w as good cause f ort he f ai l ur e t o t i m el y m ake, am en d , o rsuppl em entt he di scover y r esponse; or( 2) t he f ai l ur e t o t i m el y m ake, am end, orsuppl em entt he di scover y r esponse
w i l l notunf ai r l y s ur pr i seorunf ai r l y pr ej udi cet he ot herpa rt i es . ” Tex. R. Ci v. P. 1 9 3 .6 (a ); see FortBrown V i l l as I II Con do . A ss ’

n, I nc. , 285 S. W . 3d a t881 ( hol di ng pa rt y w ho f ai l s t o t i m el y des i gna t e a n e xpe rtm us tes t abl i sh good
ca us e o rl ac k o funf ai rs ur pr i se or pr ej udi ce bef or e t he t r i alco urtm ay adm i tt he evi den ce ) . The pur pos es of t hi s r ul e ar e t o pr om ot e r es pons i bl e a ss es sm entof
s e ttlem e n t a n d p re v e n t tria l b ya m b u s h . Tex . Mun. League I nter gov’tal Ri sk Pool v. Bur ns , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 6 , 8 1 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.);
se e al soA lvar

adov. Fa rah Mf

g. Co. , 830 S. W . 2d 911, 913– 14 ( Te x. 1992 ) ( op. on r eh’ g) ( appl yi ng pr edecessorr ul e 21 5( 5) ) . The part y seeki ng t o of f er t h e e v id e n c e a tis s u e h a st h e b u r d e n t o e s t a b lis h g o o d c a u s e o r la c k o fu n f a ir
sur pr i se orpr ej udi ce. Tex. R. C i v. P . 1 93 . 6( b) . A fi ndi ng ofg ood cau se or l ack ofunf ai rs ur pr i seorprej udi cet o t he adv er sepa rt y m us tbes upport ed by t he
re c o rd . Id.20

Th e r ecor d her e show s t hat D ef endan t s br oug ht H O A i nt o t he sui taft er th e c a s e h a d b e e n p e n d i n g a l m o s t fo u r y e a rsa n d k e p t i t i n th e s u i t fo r o v e r a yearw h i l e theycondu ct ed t hei rdi scover y. Ther e w er e sever al agr eed post pon em ent s oft he t r i al sett i ng befor e and af t erj oi ndero fH O A . The Level 3 sc h e d u l i n g o rde r, i n c l u d i n g d i sc o v e ryd e a d l i n e s a n d d e a d l i n e s to d e sign a te
e x p e rt s, ex p i red m o re t h a n tw o y e a rs b e fo re H O A w a s j o i n e d . T h e tr i a l co u rt , it s e lf , r e c o g n iz e d t h a tn o d e a d lin e s w e r e in p la c e a n d s t a t e d itw o u ld n o th o ld H O A t o t h o s e d e a d l in e s . D e f e n d a n t sc a n n o ta r g u e t h a tt h e yw e r e u n f a ir ly
su r pr i se d by t he t i m i ng ofH O A ’ s exp ertde si gna t i on w hen t heyi gnor ed t he di scover y cut of fu nderthe exp i r ed Level 3 schedu l i ng or derand f r eel y engag ed i n ext ensi ve di scover y agai nst H O A . N or can t hey ar gue un f ai rpr ej udi ce w hen H O A d e sig n a te d it s e x p e rtw i tn e ss l e ss tha n si xm o n th s a fter as se rt i n g i ts af f i r m at i ve cl ai m s, at a ti m e w hen t her e w as st i l l no t r i al sett i ng, and w hen D ef end ant s kne w of H O A ’ s exp ert des i gna t i on and had hi s r epor ti n M ay,
r ef used H O A ’s te nderoft he expertf orhi s deposi t i on i n Jul y, and t her eaft er a g re e d to re s e t th e c a s e fo r S e p te m b e r a n d a g a i n fo r O c to b e r. D ef endan t s had am pl e noti ce oft he desi gnati on and am pl e t i m e t o depo se H O A ’s ex p e rta n d to o b tai n th e i r o w n e x p e rtd u ri n g tha t f i v e -an d -a-h a l f- m o n th p e r i o d b u td e c l i n e d t o d o s o , p r e f e r r i n g t o s t a n d o n t h e i rmo t i o n t o s t r i k e . On th i s r e c o r d , H O A e s ta b l i s h e d l a c ko f u n fa i r s u rp ri s e o r p rej u d i c e . S e e, e .g .,12 ... H avi ng hel d t hatH O A est abl i shed l ack o fu nf ai rsurpr i se orpr ej udi ce,

w e n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r w h e th e r i t a l s o e s ta b l i s h e d g o o d c a u s e . S e e, e .g ., 21 S ta tev. T

a rg e t Co rp ., 1 9 4S .W .3 d 4 6 , 5 1 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.) (h o l d i n g tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d d i s c re ti o n b ye x c l u d i n g l a te d e s i g n a te d e x p e rt w h e re a d v e r se part y had hi s r eportt i m el y, deposed hi m t w i ce, and had ad eq u a te
o p p o rtu n i tyto e x p l o re b a s i sfo r o p i n i o n s ); E l l i o tt v. E l l i o tt, 21 S. W . 3d 913, 921 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2000, pe t . de ni ed) ( l ac k o fs ur pr i ses how n by pet i t i one r ’ s pl ea di ngspr ovi di ng no t i ceofhe rm ent alhe al t h c ond i t i on an d
e x p e rts w e re l i s te d i n a n s w e r to a n a n o th e r i n te rro g a to ry ); se e al soHi l bur n v. Pro vi d i a nHo ld i ngs, I n c ., No. 01- 06- 00961

- CV , 2008 W L4836 840, a t*11 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [1 s tD is t .] N o v . 6 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t .) (m e m . o p .) (p a rt yc o u ld not be hear d t o say h e w as prej udi ced w her e h e decl i ned off erofcont i nuan ce to t a k e d e p o s i ti o n o f u n ti m e l yd e s i g n a te d e x p e rt); Tr i
-Fl o I nt ’ l , I nc. v. Ja ckson , N o . 1 3 -0 1 -0 0 4 7 2 -C V , 2 0 0 2 W L3 1 4 1 2 5 3 2 , a t * 2 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti O ct . 24 , 20 02 , no pet . ) ( not desi gnated f orpubli c a ti o n) ( l ack ofsur pr i se est abl i shed f orl at e suppl em ent at i on w her e t r i al court d e l a y ed t r i al , al l ow ed di scover y and am endm entofpl eadi ngs, and opp osi ng partyfa i l ed t o r equest
c o n ti n u a n c e u n d e r r u le 1 9 3 .6 (c)) . W e h o l d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r et i on t o t he ext entt hati ti m pl i ci t l y f ound H O A f ai l ed t o e st abl i sh l ac k o f unf ai rs ur pr i seorpr ej udi ceast o a ny u nt i m el i nes s ofi t s exp ertde si gna t i on. 12G uti

er rez v. G uti

er rez , 8 6 S .W .3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 4(T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.) (n o t in g t h a tR u l e 1 9 3 .6 a llo w sa lt e r n a t iv e st o g o o d c a u s e o fla c ko fu n f a ir su r pr i seorpr ej udi ce , unl i kef or m err ul e 215( 5) , w hi ch r equ i r ed st r i cts how i ng o f g o o d c a u s e ); E

l l i o tt, 21 S. W . 3d a t921 n. 7.

22 La ckofA ny Cl ai m s asBas i s f or

S tri k i n g E x p e rt H O A ar gue s t hatt he t r i alcourter r ed by s t r i ki ng i t s exp erton t he gr ound th a t i t h a d n o c l a i m s . D u ri n g o n e o f th e fo u r d a y so f th e h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt st at ed, [T ]he d i sc u ss i o n o f th e a ss i g n m e n t sti l l m a k e s [H O A ] a p rop e r pa rt y t o t he case. Th ey’ r e not goi ng t o be abl e t o br i ng t hese addi t i onal cl ai m s, [ H O A ] , be ca us e t heydon’ tha ve t he aut hor i t y t o br i ng a ny cl ai m s. I t hi nk t he ya re n o t enti t l ed t o an i nt er est ; t hey ar e j ust e n ti tl e d to m o n e yfr o m P ros p e r. I th i n k i t’ s P ros p e r’ s re sp o n sibi l i ty t o pr osecut e t hose. The t r i al cou rt con cl ude d, bas ed on i t s i nt er pr et at i on of t he ass i gnm ent t o Pr osper , t hat H O A had no i ndi vi dual cl ai m s. The t r i al courtt hen r ul ed t hat H O A co ul d not des i gna t e an exp ert bec aus e i tha d r ul ed t hatH O A di d notha ve anycl ai m s. H O A ar gue d t hatt he t r i alco urt ’ s det er m i nat i on w aser r one ous b e c a u s e th e re w a s n o m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t b e fo re th e tri a l c o u rt
r e g a r d in g it sc la im s , n o ra st h e t r ia l c o u rtit s e lfn o t e d , w a sa n ym o t io n o n f ile t o st r i ke H O A ’ s pl eadi ngs. B yp re c l u d i n g H O A fro m p u rs u i n g i ts c l a i m si n th e s u i t, th e tri a l c o u rt i m pr ope r l y e f f ec t ed t he sa m e t ype of di sp os i t i on as a di sm i ss al , a r ul i ng s t r i ki ng23

H OA’ s p l e a d i n g s , o r a p a rt i a l s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t , v i t i a t i n g HOA’ s c as e b y p re c l u d i n g c o n s i d e ra tio n o f th o s e c l a i m sa sa m a tte r o f l a w . S e e, e .g ., Reynol dsv. Mur

phy , 2 6 6 S .W .3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 6 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rt h 2 0 0 8 , p e t. den i ed) ( hol di ng t hatby st r i ki ng ne w ca us esofac t i on i n a m end ed pet i t i on a nd
r ef usi ng t o al l ow di scover y on t hose cl ai m s, t r i al courti m pr oper l y ef f ect ed d i s m i s s a l w i th p rej u d i c e w i th o u t a ff o r d in g a p p e l l a n t o p p o rtu n i tyto re p l e a d ); Gal l i en v. W

ash. Mut. Hom e Loans, I nc. , 209 S . W . 3d 856, 8 6 2 ( Tex. A pp. — Tex ar kana 2 00 6, no pet .) ( m ot i on t o st r i ke am ended pl eadi ngs t hat
a tta c k s s u b s ta n c e o f a m e n d e d p l e a d i n g i m p ro p e r p ro c e d u ra l m e c h a n i s m ); Rodr i g u ez v. U. S. Sec. A ssocs. , I nc. , 162 S . W . 3d 868, 873– 74 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.) (sa m e ). I n a cr eat i ve pr ocedu r al tw i st, D ef endan t s used t hei rm ot i on t o st r i ke H O A ’ s exp ertt o a t t ac k HO A ’ s cl ai m s. No suc h vehi cl e i s aut hor i z ed by t he Tex as pr ocedu ral r ul es as a m eans t o sum m ar i l y di sm i ss s ubst ant i ve cl ai m s. Rodr i guez , 1 6 2 S .W .3 d a t 8 7 3 ; Centenni al I ns. Co. v. Com m erci al Uni on I ns. Cos . , 803 S . W . 2d 479, 482– 83 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 1991 , no
w r i t ) ( hol di ng t r i al court l acked aut hor i t y t o di sm i ss subst ant i ve cl ai m s) . Speci al except i ons and m ot i ons f orsum m ary j udg m entpr ovi de w el l

- sett l ed pr ocedu r al g u i d e l i n e sa n d p ro te c ti o n s . Centenni al I ns . Co. , 8 03 S. W . 2d at4 82. M ot i ons to d i sm i ss clai m s o r, as in th i s c a se , m o ti o n s to stri k e an ex p e rtb e c a u se a p a rt y24

has no cl ai m s, car ry no such saf eguar ds and ar e ant i t het i cal t o f und a m e n tal
sa f egu ar dsofduepr oce ss . Such a m ot i on i s notpr ope r l y de nom i nat ed and tri g g e rsn o s p e c i fi e d t i m e ta b l e sf o r re s p o n s e o r p ro te c ti v e m e a s u re sto a s s u re t ha tp r ope rca us esofac t i on a r e p r es erved . W e d o notad dr es s t he m er i t s of t he val i di t y oref f ectoft he or al orw r i t t en assi gnm entn orthei reff ect i ve dat es, absenta r ul i ng on a pr operm ot i on. W e si m pl y hol d t hatthe t r i al courtabused i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o t h e e x t e n tt h a ti ts t r u c kHOA’ se x p e rto n t h e b a s i st h a tHOA di d not have any cl ai m s.A dequ at e Rem edy by A ppeal A ppe l l at e c ourt s w i l l not i nt erven e t o con t r ol i nci den t al t r i al cou rtr ul i ngs
w h e n a n a d e q u a te re m e d yb ya p p e a l e x i s ts . I nrePru den ti

a l I n s . Co . o f

Am. , 1 4 8 S .W .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ); W al ker, 82 7 S . W . 2d at 840 . Buta part y w i l l notha ve an ade qua t e r em edyby app ea l ( 1) w hen t he
a pp e l l a t e c ou rtw ou l d no tb e a bl e t o c ur e t het r i a l c ou rt ’ sd i s c ov e ry e r r or , ( 2)
w hen t he part y’ s abi l i t y t o pr esent a vi abl e cl ai m or def ense at t r i al i s vi t i at ed
ors eve r el y c om pr om i se d byt he t r i alco urt ’ s di sc ove ry e r r or , or( 3) w hen t he tri a l c o u rt d i s a l l o w sd i s c o v e rya n d th e m i s s i n g d i s c o v e ryc a n n o t b e m a d e a p a rt oft he appel l at e r ecor d ort he t r i al court , aft erp r operrequest , ref uses t o m ake i t part of t he r ec or d. I n re V an W ater s & Rogers, I

nc. , 145 S. W . 3d 203,25

2 1 0

– 1 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ); I n re F ord Motor

Co. , 988 S. W . 2d 714, 7 2 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ); W al ker, 827 S. W . 2d a t843. W i t h r es pec t t o t he se con d sc ena r i o, t he r el at or m us t es t abl i sh t he ef f ect i ve deni al ofa r easonabl e o ppo rt uni t y t o devel op t he m er i t s of hi s orher
c a s e , so th a t th e tri a l w o u l d b e a w a s t e o f j u d i c i a l re s o u rc e s . W a l ker, 827 S. W . 2d at 843 . W hen , f orex am pl e, a t r i alco urti m pos esdi sc ove ry s anc t i ons t hatef f ect i vel y pr ecl ude a deci si on on t he m er i t s of a part y’ s cl ai m s— such as b ystri k i n g p l e a d i n g s, d i sm i ss i n g an ac ti o n , o r r e n d e ri n g d e fa u l t j u d g m e n t— a p a rty ’sre m e d yb ye v e n tu a l a p p e a l i si n a d e q u a te , u n l e s sth e s a n c ti o n sa re i m p o s e d s i m u l ta n e o u s l yw i th th e re n d i ti o n o f a fi n a l , a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t. Id. ( ci t i ng T

ra n sA m . Na tura l Ga sCo r p . v. Po well, 811 S. W . 2d 91 3 , 9 1 9 ( Tex. 1 9 9 1 )). D e fen d a n ts a rgu e tha t H O A h a s n o t e sta b l i sh e d th a t i t l a c k s a n ad e q u a te
r em edyby app ea l . Fi r st , D efen da nt s ar guet hatan ap pel l at e c ourtw oul d be abl e to cure t he t r i al co urt ’ s al l eged di scover y er r or , i fany; t her ef or e, H O A has
a n a d e q u a t e re m e d yb ya p p e a l. N e x t , D e f e n d a n t sc o n t e n d t h a tH O A ’s c la im s have no tbeen vi t i at ed orsever el y com pr om i sed by t he t r i al co urt ’ s or der
exc l udi ng i t s exp ertt es t i m ony. The r ec or d c ont ai nsev i den cet hatH O A ’ s exp ertw i l l t es t i f y a tt r i alon th ree m a tters e ss e n ti a l to i ts c l a i m s: (1 ) th a t t h e ch a n g e s m a d e b yD e fen d a n ts26

t o t he t opo gr aphy o fl and ar e cont r ary t o st andar ds e stabl i shed by t he T exas W at erCode a nd t he D r ai nag e a nd Surf ac e F l ow A gr ee m ent ; ( 2) t hatt he
c ha ng e s c a us e d a nd w i l l c on t i nu e t o c a us e d a m a ge t o HO A’ s pr op e rt y; a nd ( 3) t hatt he so l ut i onsof f er ed by Pr os perw oul d r em edyt he pr ob l em s creat ed by D ef end ant s. Spec i f i ca l l y, H O A ar gue d t hatt he exp erti s nec es sa ry t o he l p t he j ury und er st and “w ho vi ol at ed res pon si bi l i t i es t o w hom . ” H O A al so assert ed th a t i t w o u l d b e u n a b l e to m e a n i n g fu l l yp a rt i c i p a te i n the tr i a l w i th o u t i ts e x p e rt . T h e re w a s n o co n tr o v e rt i n g ev i d e n c e . O n this r e c o rd, the ex c l u sion o f i ts
e x p e rt ’s tes ti m o n yp rev e n ts H O A ’s ab i l i ty to fai rl ytrythis l a w su i t, w i th fo re s e e a b l e h a rm a sth e re s u l t. S ee Lo f f l and Bros. Co. v. D owney , 822 S. W . 2d 2 4 9 , 2 5 2 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 1 , o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ). H O A ’s
c la im s a t t r ia l, u n le s ss h o w n t o b e m e r it le s sb ya p r o p e rp r o c e d u r a l v e h ic le , w ill be evi sc er at ed w i t houti nt r oduc t i on ofexpertt es t i m ony, and t r i alr end er ed no
m o re th a n a n e m p tye x e rc i s e . W al ker, 82 7 S . W . 2d at84 1. Rem edy by ap peal in a d is c o v e rym a n d a m u sisn o ta d e q u a t e w h e r e a p a rt yis r e q u ir e d “ t o t ryh is la w s u it , d e b ilit a t e d b yt h e d e n ia l o f p r o p e r d is c o v e ry , o n ly t o h a v e t h a tla w s u it
r ender ed a cert ai n nul l i t y on app eal . . . . ” Id. F i n a l l y , D e fe n d a n ts c o n te n d th a t b e c a u s e H O A h a sm a d e th e e x p e rt t e s t im o n ya tis s u e a p a rto ft h e a p p e lla t e re c o r d , a ll n e c e s s a ryin f o r m a t io n is
a v a i l a b l e to th e rev i e w i n g co u rtan d m a n d a m u s i s n o t ap p rop ri a te. D e fen d a n ts27

ci t e n o a u t h o r i t y f o r t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n . Th e p r e s e n c e o f t h e s u m m a ryoft he t es t i m ony i n t he m and am usr ec or d doe s notcom pe ns at e f ort he gutt i ng of H O A ’sc l a i m sa t tri a l . R e q u i ri n g a p a rtyto tryi ts l a w s u i t w i th o u t e x p e rt t e s ti m o n y , o n l yto h a v e th e l a w s u i t re n d e re d a c e rta i n n u l l i tyo n a p p e a l , fa lls
s h o rt o f a re m e d yb ya p p e a l . S e ei d. H e re , th e tri a l c o u rt h a se x c l u d e d H O A ’s
s o le e x p e rt w it n e s s , p r e v e n t in g itf r o m f a ir lyt ry in g it sla w s u it , t h u sre s u lt in g in fo re s e e a b l e h a rm . See i d. C onc l us i on W e c onc l udet hatt he t r i alco urtcl ea r l y a bus ed i t s di sc r et i on by g r ant i ng D ef end ant s’ m ot i on t o st r i ke Rel at or ’ s exp ert w i t nes s. W e con di t i ona l l y gr ant R e l a to r’sp e ti ti o n fo r w ri t o f m a n d a m u s . W e a re c o n fi d e n t th a t th e tri a l c o u rt
w i l l vacat e i t s S ept em ber 29 , 20 08 or der gr ant i ng def endan t s’ m ot i on t o st r i ke Rel at or ’ s exp ertw i t nes s; t he w r i t w i l l i ss ue onl y i f t he t r i al cou rt f ai l s t o do s o.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: GA RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r13, 2009