in Re Bestway Oilfield, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 09-21-00204-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 31, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bestway Oilfield, Inc. seeks a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals of the Ninth District of Texas, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded its sole rebuttal witness, Mark Albert, regarding compliance with American Petroleum Institute (API) standards in a lawsuit initiated by Sentry Wellhead Systems, LLC. Sentry claims that Bestway failed to provide adequate documentation for oilfield valves and other parts, alleging non-compliance with API standards. Bestway contends that the trial court erred by not allowing it to re-depose Sentry's expert witness or designate a new rebuttal witness after Sentry's late production of expert notes and documents.

Bestway designated Albert as an expert in December 2019, stating he would review relevant documents and testify on product compliance with API standards based on his experience. However, after his deposition, Sentry moved to exclude his testimony, arguing that Bestway did not adequately identify the documents Albert reviewed and failed to comply with the trial court's docket control order requiring timely expert disclosures. The court struck Albert as an expert witness but allowed him to testify as a fact witness. Bestway's motion for reconsideration resulted in the court clarifying that Albert’s expert testimony was excluded under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which penalizes untimely disclosures unless good cause is shown that would not unfairly surprise or prejudice the opposing party. The appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief to Bestway.

The trial court did not address the alternative exclusion grounds presented by Sentry. To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. A clear abuse occurs when a decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or legally erroneous. Sentry's objections to Bestway’s discovery responses led to the exclusion of Albert’s expert testimony, based on Bestway's failure to timely identify the information reviewed by Albert. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, a general exclusion applies when a party neglects to timely amend or supplement discovery responses. However, the expert disclosure requirement can be satisfied without document attachments if sufficient notice is provided about the expert’s qualifications and the basis for their conclusions. Bestway disclosed Albert’s identity and his opinion regarding the products’ certification by an API 6A manufacturer, as well as the manufacturers' MTRs in their possession. Albert's rebuttal was that API standards apply to manufacturers, not distributors like Bestway. Although Albert did not read all relevant MTRs, those documents were available for cross-examination. Consequently, the automatic exclusion did not apply to all of Albert’s testimony, as Bestway timely disclosed relevant information. The trial court abused its discretion by applying Rule 193.6 to information that was disclosed and produced on time. Appeal would not provide an adequate remedy if the trial court's order significantly impaired Bestway's defense capability. Bestway's ability to defend against Sentry’s claims is critically hampered by the exclusion of Albert's testimony, leaving it without an adequate remedy by appeal. Additionally, Bestway argued the trial court wrongly denied its request to re-depose Sentry’s expert, Johan Lopez, due to issues regarding her notes, which were claimed not to have been relied upon for her opinions. Bestway contended the ruling limited its ability to investigate Lopez's opinions and asserted it had no obligation to designate a rebuttal expert until receiving her notes, as the party seeking relief must designate experts before others.

Sentry contends that Bestway's request for an additional deposition is an attempt to manipulate testimony to justify permitting rebuttal testimony from Albert, arguing against trial by ambush. The criteria for mandamus relief are established, noting a party lacks an adequate remedy by appeal under specific circumstances, including when discovery errors cannot be remedied post-trial or when a trial court disallows necessary discovery. Bestway's case is compromised due to the trial court's allowance of surprise expert testimony and the late production of Lopez's notes, which hindered Bestway's ability to adequately prepare a defense. Sentry's delay in producing documents for nearly a year, perceived as a "document dump," was recognized by the trial court but went unaddressed in terms of remedy. The June 15, 2021, order denying Bestway's request to depose Lopez was deemed an abuse of discretion, as was the denial of Bestway's ability to designate a new rebuttal expert based on newly disclosed information, contradicting Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the court concludes that Bestway lacks adequate remedies by appeal for both the exclusion of Albert as an expert and the denial of deposition rights. The court anticipates the trial court will vacate its previous orders if compliance is not met, leading to a conditional grant of the writ of mandamus.