Court Opinion

ID: 9636008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:12:04.750499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:31.392263
License: Public Domain

SPECTOR, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the judgment that mandamus should not issue, but dissent from the cre*214ation of a new standard under which the trial court is to reconsider its decision. By modifying the tests set forth in Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 (Tex.1989) and Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1987), the plurality has signalled that investigations of serious accidents (those resulting in serious injury or death) are presumptively privileged. Further, the procedure set out for overcoming this presumption invites needless confusion and delay. I share the concerns expressed in Part III of the concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Dog-gett; in particular, I agree that the plurality opinion unfairly shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff to establish a need for materials that are yet undiscovered. To this withdrawal from fair and open discovery, I dissent.
GAMMAGE, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.