A Judge’s Guide

MANAGING THE CHILD CUSTODY CASE
stating a health care liability claim; the amended pleading was filed after the
date set in the agreed scheduling order entered in accordance with Tex. R. Civ.
P. 166 and Tex. R. Civ. P. 190); G.R.A.V.I.T.Y. Enters v. Reese Supply Co., 177
S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, no pet.)(trial court did not err in striking
plaintiff's second amended petition filed 10 days before trial in a breach of
contract case in which the deadline for filing amended pleadings was set by the
trial court's scheduling order. The seven-day deadline of Tex. R. Civ. P. 63 did
not apply when the trial court had entered its scheduling order pursuant to Tex.
R. Civ. P. 166 setting a different deadline.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 812
(Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding)(the “trial court has power,
implicit under rule 166, to sanction a party for failing to obey its pretrial
orders”).
68 th
Bougie v. Tech. Risks, Inc., LEXIS 11282 (Tex. App. – Houston [14 Dist] 2004,
no pet.) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed
third-party defendants to file amended special appearances after a deadline in
the docket control order. The trial court allowed the late-filed motions to
prevent manifest injustice because the third-party defendants did not have
notice of the deadline; Wil-Roye Inv. Co. II v. Wash. Mut. Bank, F.A., 142 S.W.3d
393 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2004, no pet.) held that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by amending the scheduling order and extending deadlines which
had already passed based on the serious illness of the lead counsel for appellee
bank. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166 recognizes the fundamental rule that a trial court has
the inherent right to change or modify any interlocutory order or judgment
until the time the judgment on the merits in the case becomes final.
69
Tex. Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “relevant, evidence may be excluded if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the . . . needless presentation
of cumulative evidence.”
70
Hamilton v. Morrris Res., Ltd., 225 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2007,
pet.denied) held the “exclusion of an exhibit not listed in a pretrial order is not
an impermissible sanction.”
71
RESOURCES GUIDELINES, supra note 46, at 19.
72 Id. at 20.
73 Id.
74 Id.
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 21.
78 Id.
79 Id.
30