Court Opinion

ID: 9667650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:51:25.701979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.534163
License: Public Domain

CORNYN, Justice, dissenting.
The court today, in the guise of an opinion that ostensibly effects a single litigant in a solitary case, concedes defeat in at least a three decade campaign for timely, complete and accurate pre-trial disclosure of the identity and location of persons with knowledge of relevant facts. In the process, the court retreats from its previous articulations of the high-minded, yet basic, imperative of full pre-trial responses to discovery requests and, simultaneously, condemns the bench of this state to the futility of applying a new, vague and unworkable standard for determining the existence of good cause for failure to disclose the name and identity of potential witnesses under Rule 215(5).1 I have no doubt that application of this nascent standard by the lawyers and judges of Texas will prove to be the labor of Sisyphus. Like the mythical Sisyphus, whose punishment in Hades was to endlessly roll a heavy stone to a hilltop, only to have it roll back down the hill, the litigants and courts of this state are apparently condemned to litigate the good cause exception to the rule without end. Because I decline to join the retreat from the spirit and letter of our prior decisions mandating full disclosure of information that is basic to every lawsuit, and because I will not join in adopting a vague standard that will mire our courts, at the trial level and on appeal, in perpetual, fact-specific, inconclusive determinations of what does and does not constitute good cause under this incipient rule, I dissent.
I share the court’s obvious concern that cases not be decided on procedural technicalities, but on their merits. Yet I fear the remedy it prescribes for this single case may itself result in the resurrection of the kind of discovery abuse the automatic exclusionary sanction of Rule 215(5) was designed to prevent. I agree with one commentator who recently said of this very case: “If the court grants an exception in this instance, it potentially opens the gates for other exceptions, thus raising the fear that the exceptions will consume the rule.” Paul N. Gold, State Bar of Tex, Professional Dev. Program, Litigation Update, Discovery Update: Reports From the Front J-16 (1992).
Eleven times before today, and as recently as three months ago, this court has considered the sufficiency of proffered evidence of good cause under Rule 215(5). In each case, until now, the court has not found good cause to allow the testimony of *96a previously undisclosed, incompletely disclosed, or untimely disclosed person with knowledge of relevant facts in the face of a proper discovery request. Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 830 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. 1992) (finding that requesting counsel’s “awareness” of witness and deposition of her in another case was not good cause for admission of testimony, nor was counsel’s intended use of witness for rebuttal purposes only); Bainbo Baking Co. v. Stafford, 764 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1989), writ refd n.r.e., per curiam, 787 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex.1990) (finding that counsel’s expectation of settlement was not good cause); Sharp v. Broadway Nat. Bank, 784 S.W.2d 669, 671-72 (Tex.1990) (per curiam) (finding that late designation of expert witness was not good cause, despite deposition of witness, no surprise and claim of unfairness at being able to call expert witness under the circumstances); Clark v. Trailways, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex.1989) (concluding that uniqueness of witness’s knowledge did not constitute good cause), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1074, 110 S.Ct. 1122, 107 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1990); McKinney v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 772 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.1989); Boothe v. Hausler, 766 S.W.2d 788, 789 (Tex.1989) (per curiam) (finding that “great harm” caused by inability to call witness was not good cause); Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.1989) (finding no good cause in the record); E.F. Hutton v. Youngblood, 741 S.W.2d 363, 364 (Tex. 1987) (finding that inadvertent, late decision about calling expert witness and opposing counsel’s ability to cross-examine undisclosed witness on attorney’s fees was not good cause); Gutierrez v. Dallas In-dep. School Disk, 729 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. 1987); Morrow v. H.E.B., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.1986) (per curiam) (failing to provide witness’s address was not good cause, despite offer to allow deposition of witness and no surprise); Yeldell v. Holiday Hills Retirement & Nursing Center, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 243, 246-47 (Tex.1985) (failing to supplement answers, true when given, was not good cause when party later learned of witness, but failed to supplement).
The courts of appeals have dutifully followed this court’s lead by strictly enforcing Rule 215(5). See, e.g., Thompson v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 824 S.W.2d 212, 216-17 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no writ) (concluding that the unsworn designation of experts who had been deposed prior to trial did not discharge the duty to fully supplement the response to direct inquiries regarding experts); Durish v. Panan Intern., N.V., 808 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ) (finding that knowledge of a witness’s identity by all parties was not in itself good cause, nor was the fact that the witness had been previously deposed); Stiles v. Royal Ins. Co., 798 S.W.2d 591, 594-96 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1990, writ denied) (concluding that general knowledge and previous deposition of a witness did not establish good cause, nor did opposing party’s possession of expert’s report constitute good cause to allow his testimony absent proper identification in response to a proper inquiry); Gonzalez v. Stevenson, 791 S.W.2d 250, 252-53 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1990, no writ) (deposing a witness by written questions prior to trial did not constitute good cause); K-Mart Corp. v. Grebe, 787 S.W.2d 122, 126-27 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied) (finding that knowledge and interview of witness did not constitute good cause); Stoll v. Rothchild, 763 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Tex.App — Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied) (disclosing witness’s identity in pre-trial summary judgment proceedings and deposition did not constitute good cause); Ramos v. Champlin Petroleum Co., 750 S.W.2d 873, 876-77 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied) (finding that good cause is not satisfied by showing lack of surprise or that the witness had already been deposed); Hall Const. Co. v. Texas Industries, 748 S.W.2d 533, 536-37 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1988, no writ) (failing to find good cause where proposed witness was defendant’s vice president and had verified defendants’ responses to interrogatories).
This court’s adoption of Rule 215(5) in 1984 was rightly interpreted as a strong message to the bench and bar that the Texas Supreme Court abhors discovery *97abuse as a cancer in our civil justice system. David W. Holman & Byron C. Keeling, Disclosure of Witnesses in Texas: The Evolution and Application of Rules 166b(6) and 215(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 Baylor L.Rev. 405, 417 (1990) [hereinafter Holman & Keeling, Disclosure of Witnesses in Texas]. Discovery abuse in all its shapes and forms encourages trial by ambush, promotes gamesmanship, provides a disincentive to settlement, unduly increases the complexity and expense of litigation, delays dispute resolution and overburdens our taxpayer-supported court system. There is bitter irony in the fact that just when the bench and bar have finally come to accept that the court will enforce the requirement of full and accurate responses to discovery requests as a predicate to the admission of evidence, the court inexplicably balks. This loss of confidence in the court’s own repeatedly articulated convictions on this subject is especially surprising in light of this court’s recent statement in Alvarado that “we are not free to disregard [the rule’s] plain language. Nor should we revise the rule by opinion.” Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. 1992).
However, scrutiny of the court’s opinion demonstrates how it does just what we said we would not do in Alvarado, that is, effectively change the rule by opinion. The court does explicitly decline to engraft a “party exception” on Rule 215(5). To the contrary, the court states: “a party cannot disregard procedural rules and still insist upon an absolute right to testify in all circumstances.” 830 S.W.2d at 916. Instead, the court proclaims a new standard for good cause:
[T]he constraints of Rule 215(5) may permit testimony by a party who is an individual not listed in response to a Rule 166(2)(d) interrogatory, when identity is certain and when his or her personal knowledge of relevant facts has been communicated to all other parties, through pleadings and response to other discovery at least thirty (30) days in advance of trial.
830 S.W.2d at 91. Thus, the court’s new exception “may” (in other words, it is discretionary) apply to “individual” party-litigants 2 (but apparently not to class actions or other multiple party litigation, organizations under Rule 201(4), including partnerships, associations, professional corporations, for-profit and not-for-profit corporations) whose identity is “certain” (to whom?) and when the witness’s knowledge of relevant facts has been “communicated” (orally or in writing?) to all (does the court really mean all?) other parties “through pleadings and response to other discovery” (this includes petitions, answers, cross-claims, cross-actions, motions, responses, affidavits, depositions and even voluminous documents). In fact, it appears that good cause can be shown even when a proper discovery request is not timely, accurately or completely answered. Indeed, a litigant could intentionally ignore a discovery request and show good cause under the court’s new standard.
But try as the court might, it cannot escape history, and so it seems we are condemned to relive it. Apparently, the court’s institutional memory of the bar’s thirty-three year travail since the dark days of Ex parte Ladon, 160 Tex. 7, 325 S.W.2d 121 (1959), and Ex parte Frank Hanlon, 406 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.1966), has dimmed. Although our rules first allowed pre-trial discovery of the identity and location of persons with knowledge of relevant facts in 1957, this court in both Ladon and Han-lon held that such information was nevertheless subject to a work-product privilege and not discoverable when that objection is interposed.3 See Menton v. Lattimore, *98667 S.W.2d 335, 339 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1984, orig. proceeding). Thus, the rule’s promise of routine discovery of such basic information was meaningless in practice. Holman & Keeling, Disclosure of Witnesses in Texas, 42 Baylor L.Rev. at 410-11.
It was not until 1984, when the rules of civil procedure were amended, that this court guaranteed ready access to the names and location of persons with knowledge of relevant facts in the form of Rule 215(5). In the interim, access to this information was “mired in complex procedural rules and gamesmanship.” Holman & Keeling, Disclosure of Witnesses in Texas, 42 Baylor L.Rev. at 414. Frustrated with the cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming nature of existing procedures to reliably gain access to this information, the members of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee encouraged the supreme court in 1979 to promulgate discovery rules that would reduce gamesmanship in identifying potential witnesses and permitting adequate time before trial for deposing witnesses. See generally Minutes, Advisory Committee for the Supreme Court of Texas, May 4-5, 1979, Austin, pp. 49-118.
Compounding the difficulties with the pre-1984 rules was the fact that neither a lawyer nor a court could accurately predict how a trial court’s decision to allow or not allow an undisclosed witness to testify would be treated on appeal. In 1985, when a member of this court surveyed twelve appellate court decisions on this subject between 1981 and 1985, the survey disclosed: “trial courts have been affirmed when they allowed testimony; reversed when they allowed testimony; affirmed when they refused testimony; and, reversed for refusing testimony.” William W. Kilgarlin, What to Do With the Unidentified, Expert, 48 Tex.B.J. 1192, 1195 (Nov.1985). There was little argument at the time — nor can, I submit, there reasonably be now — that such unpredictability and lack of uniformity is a grave disservice to the litigants who we serve and cannot comport with any rational notion of equal justice under the law, or efficient administration of our civil justice system.
Full disclosure, as we have repeatedly observed, encourages settlements. Referring to “our longstanding policy of facilitating settlement by fostering full discovery,” we have written,
Our goal in promulgating Rules 166b and 215(5) and our prior opinions interpreting these rules was to encourage full disclosure of the issues and facts prior to trial so that parties could make realistic assessments of their respective positions. It was our hope that this would facilitate settlements and prevent trial by ambush.
Rainbo Baking Co., 787 S.W.2d at 42 (quoting Gee, 765 S.W.2d at 396 (Gonzalez, J.) (emphasis in original)).
Rule 215(5) is an admittedly rigorous rule, but one intended to promote the fair administration of justice by requiring that discovery rules be applied evenly and consistently in each case. See Alvarado, 830 S.W.2d at 919; William W. Kilgarlin & Don Jackson, Sanctions For Discovery Abuse Under New Rule 215, 15 St. Mary’s L.J. 767, 820 (1984) [hereinafter Kilgarlin & Jackson, Sanctions for Discovery Abuse ]. The purpose of the automatic exclusionary sanction is not to punish a litigant for whom it is inordinately difficult or impossible to respond to a discovery request in a timely manner. Alvarado, 830 S.W.2d at 914; Clark, 774 S.W.2d at 646. Indeed, it has been suggested that inability or more than routine difficulty with timely complying with a request for the identity and location of potential witnesses is the essence of good cause, if proven. Alvarado 830 S.W.2d at 914; Clark, 774 S.W.2d at 646; see also Holman & Keeling, Disclosure of Witnesses in Texas, 42 Baylor L.Rev. at 440, 442 (unforeseen events trigger good cause exception); Foster v. Cunningham, 825 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1992, writ pending) (“good cause exception is necessarily a narrow one requiring a showing of extraordinary cir-*99cumstances_ [T]he trial court’s discretion in the matter is limited to situations where one could not, in good faith and due diligence, immediately respond ... or where difficult or impossible circumstances prevented one from supplementing discovery.”) By restrictively interpreting the good cause exception, the rule promotes full discovery and serves as a disincentive for litigants who withhold requested information within the scope of discovery. See Clark, 774 S.W.2d at 646.
Enforcement of the rule is a matter of basic fairness to all litigants. This is because it is only fair that “a party expect that the rule he has attempted to comply with will be enforced equally against his adversary.” Alvarado, 830 S.W.2d at 914; see also Sharp, 784 S.W.2d at 671 (a party is entitled to prepare for trial assured that a witness will not be called because opposing counsel has not identified him or her in response to a proper interrogatory). It is a simple fact of life for lawyers who try cases that compliance with this rule is just one of a multitude of rigorous demands made by the mostly technical and unforgiving rules governing the trial and appeal of cases.
This court could not have stated more clearly the duty to supplement discovery and the consequences for failure to do so under Rule 215(5). The sanction of exclusion is automatic. Sharp, 784 S.W.2d at 671; Morrow, 714 S.W.2d at 297. Moreover, the exclusionary sanction applies to the failure to timely respond initially as well as the failure to provide complete information, when it becomes available. See, e.g., Boothe, 766 S.W.2d 788; Morrow, 714 S.W.2d at 297 (exclusion of testimony mandated for failure to provide the address of a potential witness when it becomes available, even though it was not known when originally requested). And, the duty to adequately supplement applies to all proper discovery requests, not just interrogatories. See, e.g., Clark, 774 S.W.2d at 646; see also Kilgarin & Jackson, Sanctions for Discovery Abuse, 15 St. Mary’s L.J. at 817. Despite the clarity of the rule and the unanimity of our decisions construing its good cause exception, too often and usually for avoidable reasons, many counsel find themselves desperately trying to avoid this automatic sanction that can mortally wound the viability of a claim or defense.
While the sanction is automatic, it is important to reiterate what we recently stated in Alvarado, echoed today in the concurring opinions of Justices Gonzalez and Hecht, regarding the alternatives available to a trial court that permit the court to ameliorate the harsh consequences of automatic exclusion in deserving cases, when good cause does not otherwise support the admission of undisclosed evidence:
When a party has failed to timely identify evidence in response to discovery requests, the trial court has discretion to postpone the trial and, under Rule 215.3, to impose an appropriate sanction upon the offending party for abuse of the discovery process. Such sanction may be used to compensate the non-offending party for any expense in preparing for trial. Although the trial court should not allow delay to prejudice the non-offending party, the trial court should ordinarily be able to cure any prejudice by a just imposition of sanctions.
Alvarado, 830 S.W.2d at 915-16 (footnote omitted).
While postponing a trial can certainly prejudice the rights of the non-offending party under some circumstances and unduly add to a trial court’s considerable responsibilities in managing a trial docket, such an option is available to the trial court in the interests of justice. Such alternative sanctions are especially important when the entire claim or defense would otherwise be effectively lost due to inadvertence of counsel. See TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 922 (Tex. 1991) (Gonzalez, J., concurring) (punishment should fit the “crime”).
Yet, unfortunately, the court does not consider this option and, even worse, fails to address how its decision today can be reconciled with the literal language of the rule or our prior decisions. The reason why it does not attempt to do so, I suggest, is because they cannot be reconciled. The
*100100 Tex.
835 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
court announces a new unworkable rule and simultaneously, perhaps unwittingly, reverts to the gamesmanship, surprise and trial by ambush the adoption of Rule 215(5) sought to prevent. This is because, as I have explained, the court’s new good cause standard raises more questions than answers. For this reason, the standard will surely be fertile ground for future litigation at all levels of our court system.
Because the court’s new good cause standard consigns countless issues to future litigation; because the court does not suggest how its new standard can be reconciled with our previous decisions applying Rule 215(5) and thus injects confusion into what was heretofore a clear and simple rule of law; and because the court reintroduces harmful gamesmanship into discovery of basic facts and the trial of cases, I dissent.
Belinda Moore ROGERS, Petitioner,
v.
Robert STELL and Mary Stell, Respondents.
No. D-2348.
Supreme Court of Texas.
July 1, 1992.
Defendant in action alleging property damage to automobile appealed from order of the County Court at Law, No. 4, Dallas County, Bob Day, J., which rendered judgment against her. The Dallas Court of Appeals, 828 S.W.2d 115, affirmed. In granting application for writ of error, the Supreme Court held that undisclosed individual party witness may testify at trial where party did not respond to or supplement her response to interrogatory seeking persons expected to be called at trial, but
properly identified herself as person with knowledge of relevant facts.
Reversed and remanded.
1. Pretrial Procedure @=>313
Undisclosed individual party witness may testify at trial where party did not respond to or supplement her response to interrogatory seeking persons expected to be called at trial, but properly identified herself as person with knowledge of relevant facts. Vernon’s Ann.Texas Rules Civ. Proe., Rule 215, subd. 5.
2. Appeal and Error @=>232
Party failed to preserve for review argument that rules do not permit interrogatory compelling party to reveal witnesses he expects to call at trial, where party’s only objections to question were that it was excessively burdensome, unnecessary expense, and harassment.
G. David Westfall, Dallas, for petitioner.
James Lee Williams, Dallas, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
[1] We hold that an undisclosed individual party witness may testify at trial where the party did not respond to or supplement her response to an interrogatory seeking persons expected to be called at trial, but properly identified herself as a person with knowledge of relevant facts.
After a traffic accident, Robert and Mary Stell sued Belinda Rogers for property damage to their car. Among the twenty-three interrogatories Rogers answered were the following:
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: List the names and addresses of all persons who have knowledge of the facts of said occurrence or of the damages referred to in our Petition, and state what specific knowledge or information each such person possesses.
ANSWER: (1) Belinda Moore Rogers
(2) Ellis C. Rogers
(3) Mrs. Mary Stell
*101INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Give the name and address of any witness whom you intend to call to testify in this ease. Although she objected to both of these interrogatories, Rogers provided a response only to the first one, listing herself as a person having knowledge of relevant facts. She did not appear at the hearing. The trial court overruled all objections, refused to allow Rogers to testify in her own defense, and rendered judgment in the Stells’ favor. The court of appeals affirmed. 828 S.W.2d 115.
Rogers correctly argues that our rules do not permit an interrogatory compelling a party to reveal the witnesses he expects to call at trial. However, she failed to preserve this argument because her only objections to the question were that it was excessively burdensome, an unnecessary expense, and harassment. See Gutierrez v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist, 729 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex.1987).
Rogers’s response to Interrogatory No. 11, however, stated that she had knowledge of facts relevant to the accident. Her answers to the remaining interrogatories also clearly conveyed that Rogers witnessed the accident and provided her statement of what happened. On this basis, Rogers asserts there was good cause to admit her testimony under Tex.R.Civ.P. 215.5.1
We recently held in Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, Ltd., 835 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex. 1992), that “where the answer to another query in a single, short set of interrogatories plainly indicated that the individual responding had knowledge of relevant facts, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find ‘good cause’ to permit that party’s testimony.” Rogers was clearly identified as having knowledge of relevant facts. The trial court abused its discretion in barring her testimony. Cf. Exocet, Inc. v. Cordes, 815 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Tex.App. — Austin 1991, no writ) (upholding trial court’s discretion to admit testimony of party not identified in response to an interrogatory seeking witness list).
Pursuant to Rule 170, Tex.R.App.P., without hearing oral argument, a majority of this court grants the application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

. That rule, effective April 1, 1984, provides: A party who fails to respond to or supplement his response to a request for discovery shall not be entitled to present evidence which the party was under a duty to provide in a response or supplemental response or to offer the testimony of an expert witness or of any other person having knowledge of discoverable matter, unless the trial court finds that good cause sufficient to require admission exists. The burden of establishing good cause is upon the party offering the evidence and good cause must be shown in the record.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 215(5) (emphasis added).

. Rule 215(5) applies to the testimony of an expert witness or of any other person having knowledge of discoverable matter. The court's good cause standard purports to be limited to parties, but the duty to respond or supplement discovery requests is identical for all persons with expert and factual knowledge, parties and non-parties alike. If the court's standard is to be applied only to parties, on what basis can a principled distinction be made?

. The fine distinction between discovery of the identity of witnesses who will be called to testify at trial per se, and the discovery of persons with *98knowledge of relevant facts, is explained on the basis that the former is privileged work-product while the latter is not. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Butler, 511 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1974, writ refd n.r.e.).

. Rule 215.5 provides:
A party who fails to respond to or supplement his response to a request for discovery shall not be entitled to present evidence which the party was under a duty to provide in a response or supplemental response or to offer the testimony of an expert witness or of any other person having knowledge of discoverable matter, unless the trial court finds that good cause sufficient to require admission exists. The burden of establishing good cause is upon the party offering the evidence and good cause must be shown upon the record.