Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-In-Re-Jacobs-MD-Dissent-by-Sullivan-net-worth-discovery-scope-standard.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:52:15+00:00

Document:
be resolved by this Court.
even at the trial-court level.
importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the material issues of the lawsuit. See id.
which punitive or exemplary damages could be awarded. 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1988) (orig.
proceeding), disapproved of on other grounds by Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). However, Lunsford properly should be considered in its historical context.
that his conduct created an extreme degree of risk to the safety of others.
as recognized by Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 20 n.11 (Tex. 1994).
decade. See Lunsford, 746 S.W.2d at 476 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting).
* Juries could no longer award exemplary damages intended solely to serve “as an example to others,"
but were instead limited to assessing damages with the purpose of punishing the defendant.
* The Legislature lowered the existing cap on punitive damages.
further limited the amount of punitive damages that could be assessed. See id. § 1 secs. 41.007, 41.008.
recovery by a claimant. See id. § 1 secs. 41.001(5), 41.002, 41.003(b), 41.005.
amount of, such damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.003(d) (Vernon 2008 & Supp.
2009); Tex. R. Civ. P. 292; DeAtley v. Rodriguez, 246 S.W.3d 848, 850 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).
corresponding to its utility in resolving these important issues. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4(b).
scenario, the burden and expense of the proposed discovery would be minimal. See id.
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., ___ S.W.3d ___, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1231, 2009 WL 2666774, at *4 (Tex. Aug.
information and should choose the least intrusive means of retrieval.").
with" the provision of medical care.
prevail as practitioners and judges attempt to ascertain the components of 'net worth.'" Lunsford, 746 S.W.
surrounding this fundamental issue. This confusion should be resolved by this Court.
documents relevant to calculate it).
recur. I believe parties to litigation in Texas are entitled to greater clarity and predictability from our courts.
Accordingly, I would urge that Lunsford be revisited and updated.
Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and Sullivan. (Brown, J., majority) (Sullivan, J., concurring).
Instructions, 37 St. Mary's L.J. 515, 529 (2006) (citations omitted); see Burk, 616 S.W.2d at 922.
version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 41.001-.013 (Vernon 2008 & Supp. 2009)).
Damages, 32 Hous. L. Rev. 1059, 1066 (1995).
 See Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, §§ 13.01-.08, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 886-89 (current version at Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 41.001-.013 (Vernon 2008 & Supp. 2009)).
damage award from a Texas jury.").
 In fact, some might argue Chapter 41, as currently constituted, imposes punitive-damage liability only for intentional torts.
and (2) consciously indifferent decision to proceed nonetheless).
awarding punitive damages. See Lunsford, 746 S.W.2d at 472-73; Alamo Nat'l Bank v. Kraus, 616 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex.
defendant's net worth. See Durban v. Guajardo, 79 S.W.3d 198, 210-11 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, no pet.).
 Closed corporations and closely-held corporations may present similar, albeit somewhat less serious, issues.
private individual is highly unlikely to have audited financial statements readily available.
(surveying numerous cases precluding discovery into federal income-tax returns).
calculation of those amounts C potentially much more invasive and complicated C until a later point when necessary.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1
 § 41
 v. 
 v. 
 v.