Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-In-Re-BP-Products-North-America-Tex-2008-Apex-Deposition-Mandamus.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:19:31+00:00

Document:
IN RE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; from Galveston County; 1st district (01-06-00943 CV, ___ S.W.
in the 212th District Court in Galveston County. The parties conducted extensive discovery.
appeals granted relief requiring consideration of the affidavits. In re BP Products N. Am., Inc., 2006 Tex. App.
again denied BP Product’s motions and allowed the depositions to proceed.
plaintiffs regarding the executives’ depositions, and the parties filed the agreement with the trial court. See Tex.
willingness to restrict Mr. Manzoni for four hours instead of the six or more we may need to do a thorough job.
And also to firmly restrict the deposition of Lord Browne to one hour which was unprecedented on our part.
satisfy both the apex standard and the standard provided in the agreement.
[W]e are abiding by the contract. The contract we’re relying is under paragraph four of the Rule 11 agreement .
with one hour and we’ll still stick with the teleconference . . . .
The trial court ended the first day of the hearing with the statement that it was not convinced “based on how Mr.
until October 11th, to give BP Products an opportunity to examine plaintiffs’ new exhibits.
conference, but for the four to six hours individually we were originally intending to take the deposition.
The Court further finds that the parties’ Rule 11 Agreement concerning the depositions of Mr. Manzoni and Mr.
(5) BP’s public comments appear to be part of a continuing effort by BP to taint the jury pool.
costs/expenses to be paid by the defendants.
A writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion by a trial court. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.
2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). A failure by the trial court to apply the law correctly constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 840. The relator must show no adequate remedy by appeal exists. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.
whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review. Id.
question here is whether the trial court had adequate reason to set aside the parties’ agreement.
“unbounded.” Id. cmt. 1. Wherever possible, a trial court should give effect to agreements between the parties.
(Tex. 2007) (trial court had duty to enforce valid Rule 11 pretrial agreement); EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.
judicial supervision. The Rules of Civil Procedure encourage parties to reach discovery agreements. See Tex.
R. Civ. P. 191.2. When the parties conclude an agreement, the court should not lightly ignore their bargain.
797 S.W.2d 689 (Tex. App.–Houston 1990, writ. denied); SEC v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 229-3 (2d Cir.
bargain and then attempt to avoid its own obligations.
have reasonably induced the plaintiffs to enter the discovery agreement. See Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v.
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 84 cmt. b (1979) (defining waiver); Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.
discovery agreement to one party, without more, does not justify a refusal to enforce the agreement.
re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam); Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.3; cf. Am. Flood Research, Inc. v.
Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583-84 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).
court abused its discretion by setting aside the parties’ Rule 191.1 agreement.
211 (Tex. 2002) (a trial court does not abuse its discretion if some evidence supports its decision).
knowledge about the budget cuts. This inference might not normally support the taking of an apex deposition.
the finding does not justify setting aside the agreement.
detriments of mandamus review. See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136-38.
if the court does not.
will be deemed by the parties to be vacated and of no effect and no order will be tendered by plaintiffs.
protected, the deposition of John Browne will be limited to one hour by telephone.
Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.005. Justice O’Neill is recused.
intrusive methods of discovery are unsatisfactory, insufficient or inadequate.” In re Alcatel USA, Inc., 11 S.W.
3d 173, 176 (Tex. 2000); see also Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1995).
 For the full text of the parties’ agreement, see the appendix.
conducted.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.1 cmt 1.
court findings may be helpful in assessing whether or not the trial court abused its discretion).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 84
 v. 
 v.

 § 22
 v.