in Re Terex USA, L.L.C., Terex Demag Gmbh, Terex Demag Gmbh & Co. Kg, and Terex Corporation

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-12-00738-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 3, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Relators Terex USA, L.L.C., Terex Demag GmbH, Terex Demag GmbH Co. KG, and Terex Corporation petitioned for a writ of mandamus, alleging that Judge Robert Vargas of the Nueces County Court at Law abused his discretion by granting a motion to compel production of documents related to incidents involving Terex cranes from 2007 to 2011. This ruling stems from a products liability suit filed by Clayton Burnett, who sustained injuries while operating a Terex crane. The trial court's order requires Terex to produce all files concerning incidents reported to product safety director Klaus Meissner, both where operator misuse was alleged and where it was not.

Terex argues that the order is overly broad, as it does not limit the scope to the specific crane type involved in Burnett's accident, the nature of the accident, or the timeframe preceding the incident. Burnett counters that his request is tailored to incidents reviewed by Meissner and cites Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3(e), which permits discovery of facts related to the expert's opinions, regardless of when the information was obtained. Burnett also claims Terex waived its objections regarding breadth and timing by not raising these issues in the trial court.

The court emphasizes that mandamus is appropriate for correcting clear abuses of discretion when appellate remedies are inadequate. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without reference to guiding principles, or fails to apply the law correctly. Ultimately, the court denied Terex's petition for writ of mandamus.

Overly broad discovery orders can be challenged through mandamus, but in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accidents occurring after Burnett’s injury are pertinent to assessing Terex's ability to foresee the alleged operator misuse, although this specific argument was not raised in the trial court and is thus waived. Reports of accidents without allegations of operator misuse must be submitted solely to the Special Master for discoverability assessment, indicating Terex cannot claim harm from this order provision. It is deemed reasonable for the Special Master to evaluate the relevance of incident reports to Terex’s defense. Additionally, testimony indicated that compiling a list of all accident reports would not be burdensome, justifying the trial court's order for the production of such files. After reviewing the petition and response, the relators failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief, leading to the denial of the writ of mandamus. The court also lifted a stay that had been imposed previously.