Opinion ID: 1505341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: admission of baumann's deposition testimony

Text: Because this suit was tried in 1980, the 1981 amendments to Tex.R.Civ.P. 168 do not apply. [3] Instead, Rule 168 as amended in 1973 is applicable. The 1973 version of Rule 168 requires supplementation of answers to certain interrogatories, including those seeking disclosure of experts who are expected to be called to testify. The rule does not, however, contain a provision specifying a sanction to be imposed for noncompliance with this supplementation requirement. [4] Texas Employer's Insurance Association v. Thomas, 517 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Consequently, the imposition of an appropriate sanction for failure to supplement interrogatories in compliance with the rule is within the broad discretion of the trial court. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Thomas, supra at 834-35; Trubell v. Patten, 582 S.W.2d 606, 610 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1979, no writ). The standard for reviewing the trial court's action is whether this discretion was clearly abused. An appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Werner v. Miller, 579 S.W.2d 455, 456-57 (Tex.1979); Landry v. Travelers Insurance Company, 458 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex.1970); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Thomas, supra at 834. Similarly, a trial court's refusal to impose a particular sanction can be set aside only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Tenngasco Gas Gathering Company v. Fischer, 624 S.W.2d 301, 303 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). To establish a clear abuse of discretion, the complaining party must show that the trial court's action was arbitrary or unreasonable in light of all the circumstances of the particular case. Landry v. Travelers Insurance Company, supra ; see also Comment, Imposition and Selection of Sanctions in Texas Pretrial Discovery, 31 Baylor L.Rev. 191, 196 (1979). In this case, Cessna advances three arguments for its position that admission of Baumann's testimony was reversible error. First, it argues that the 1981 addition to Rule 168, providing for exclusion of expert testimony in this situation, was simply a clarification of the existing rule and that such exclusion was therefore an appropriate sanction when this lawsuit was tried. The question before this court, however, is not whether exclusion of Baumann's testimony was an appropriate sanction, but whether imposition of that sanction was mandatory under the circumstances. Clearly the trial court had the discretion to prevent Baumann from giving evidence. See, e.g., Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Meyer, 620 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. Civ.App.Waco 1981, no writ). Nevertheless, the court decided not to impose that sanction. The decision must stand unless it was a clear abuse of discretion. Cessna also argues that even if Mrs. Smithson had called Baumann to testify in front of the jury following his deposition, the applicable Rule 168 would have compelled the trial court to exclude his testimony because of Mrs. Smithson's failure to comply with the requirement for supplementation of interrogatories. Cessna apparently believes that under the 1973 version of Rule 168, nondisclosure of an expert witness until after the trial has begun creates an unfair surprise that can be mitigated only through exclusion of the expert's testimony. We cannot endorse such an inflexible restriction on the trial court's ability to fulfill its discretionary duties in conducting a fair trial and administering discovery rules. To conclude that there was only one permissible action available to the trial court is virtually to deny the court any discretion in these instances. Smithson may have surprised Cessna when she called an undisclosed expert witness, but the record does not clearly establish that the granting of a continuance or a postponement of the trial would not have sufficiently protected Cessna from any harm due to the surprise. In fact, since the primary basis of Cessna's objection was that the mid-trial disclosure of Baumann did not allow enough time to prepare an adequate defense and to find rebuttal experts, either of these two possibilities might have been sufficient to cure the harm caused by the nondisclosure of the expert. Cessna, however, chose not to request a continuance or postponement even after the trial court refused to bar Baumann's testimony. Instead, Cessna asked only for one of the harshest sanctions available to the court. The failure to present a motion to continue or to postpone the trial severely undermines the assertion that the trial court abused its discretion. See Texas Power & Light Co. v. Holder, 385 S.W.2d 873, 889 (Tex.Civ.App.Tyler 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); National Surety Corp. v. Rushing, 628 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Tex.App.Beaumont 1981, no writ). We hold that under these circumstances the exclusion of Baumann's testimony was not mandatory. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Finally, Cessna argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Mrs. Smithson to read parts of Baumann's deposition into evidence instead of calling him to testify before the jury. Cessna points out that the trial court's stated purpose in ordering the mid-trial deposition was to permit Cessna to discover the substance of Baumann's upcoming testimony so that effective cross-examination could be prepared. We agree that the mid-trial deposition, as an attempted remedy of any unfair surprise to Cessna, was not as effective as it would have been if Baumann had subsequently testified in court. However, no one disputes that had Cessna deposed Baumann several weeks before the trial began, the deposition testimony would have been admissible despite Baumann's absence from the trial. Consequently, the only serious harm about which Cessna legitimately can complain is the harm it asserted in its argument to the trial court, namely, the lack of time in which to locate expert witnesses to rebut or to qualify Baumann's testimony. Again, a continuance or a postponement might have been sufficient to cure that harm. Of the actions available to the trial court, exclusion of Baumann's testimony may have been the only remedy Cessna desired. It was not, however, the only appropriate means available to the trial court for dealing with Mrs. Smithson's violation of Rule 168. Therefore, the trial court's refusal to exclude the testimony was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.