Court Opinion

ID: 9771801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:53:50.212359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:36.906574
License: Public Domain

GONZALEZ, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Due to a lawyer’s “blunder” in answering interrogatories six days late, without a showing of how Davis was harmed or prejudiced, this court is requiring law enforcement officials to turn over the names (including confidential informants), addresses and statements to a suspect in an ongoing multi-state criminal investigation. This exalts form over substance and this I am unwilling to do. In weighing the competing interests — strict application of the rules versus non-interference with ongoing criminal investigations — under the facts of this case, the better rule is that we give priority to protecting ongoing criminal investigations.
Petitioners’ written objections to the interrogatories had been on file for more than 60 days prior to the trial court's ruling on the Motion for Sanctions. The interrogatories clearly inquired into confidential and privileged matters. The court’s decision today will hamper and frustrate the ongoing criminal investigation. See Ex parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.1977).
Before today, there was no Texas precedent for the action taken by the court. The Independent Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1987, writ dism’d) case is distinguishable. That case involved a delay of almost four months in answering interrogatories, and repeated requests by counsel for more time to answer, followed by repeated failure to meet the agreed upon “extension.”
For the above reasons, I would make the court’s holding prospective only.