Court Opinion

ID: 9774523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:22:51.494686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:09.479193
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Chief Justice,
concurring.
How is it fair to allow one side to a lawsuit to name an expert witness thirty-eight days before trial then disallow the other side that opportunity thirty-one days prior to trial? Good question! I do not have the answer. This is certainly the type proceeding that makes an appellate justice want to stretch his concept of mandamus. I can easily jump the first hurdle, i.e., clear abuse of discretion. It’s the second hurdle that brings the fall, i.e., remedy on appeal.
I so agree with Justice Brookshire where in his dissenting opinion he asked “Why not let the jury have the full benefit of all relevant, admissible, non-redundant discovery?” Indeed, why not?
The bottom line reason for this concurrence is to make the point that appellate courts should not try lawsuits. Our business is to seek out and destroy error. Mindful of course, that occasionally our seeking results is our own self-destruction.
Mandamus is not here the remedy.