Court Opinion

ID: 9404115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 07:10:30.988184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:11.767186
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                     EL PASO, TEXAS

 IN RE:                                            §               No. 08-23-00081-CV

 EAN HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE                §         AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 RENT-A-CAR
                                                   §                 IN MANDAMUS
                                       Relator.
                                                   §

                                                   §

                                   CONCURRING OPINION

       Given our present record, I join with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court abused

its discretion in denying Enterprise’s motion for leave to designate the USBP as a responsible third

party. I write separately, however, to comment further about Relator’s long delay in supplementing

its response to a discovery request seeking information about the existence of such third parties.

       It is true that Enterprise’s post-limitations discovery conduct provides no basis for denying

an otherwise proper third-party designation, when timely filed, pursuant to § 33.004(d). In re

Mobile Mini, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 781, 786-87 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004(d). Although this is the case, I would add that it does not necessarily

follow that such discovery conduct would be seen as immaterial to the resolution of other pretrial
issues. In In re Bertrand, 602 S.W.3d 691, 706 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, no pet.), the court

particularly noted, “[w]e express no opinions on other issues which may be related to discovery

abuse governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, pre-trial discovery orders, or otherwise.”

Id.

       Rule 193.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]n amended or

supplemental response must be made reasonably promptly after the party discovers the necessity

for such a response.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.5(b). Here, Todorovic contends Enterprise never

supplemented its discovery responses to mention the USBP as a responsible third-party during the

long period the case remained pending awaiting trial. Reading the statute in harmony, as we must,

I find that such conduct may be relevant to other aspects of the third-party designation. For

example, § 33.004(l) permits a party, after adequate time for discovery, to move “to strike the

designation of a responsible third party on the ground that there is no evidence that the designated

person is responsible for any portion of the claimant's alleged injury or damage.” TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004(l). Thus, even though §33.004(d) permits Enterprise to make such

third-party designation, §33.004(l) further provides that the designation remains subject to being

stricken, after adequate time for discovery on the ground that no evidence supports a claim that

the USBP bears a portion of responsibility for Todorovic’s claimed injury or damages.

                                              GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

June 16, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

                                                 2