22.02.2014 Views

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

court's net worth orders. Specifically, the court <strong>of</strong> appeals ruled Relators are to produc e<br />

only current net worth in<strong>for</strong>mation, and are not required to create affidavits in a <strong>for</strong>mat <strong>of</strong><br />

what would have been provided to a lender, but are required only to produce document s<br />

in response to the Real Parties' request <strong>for</strong> production that already exist . Id. at *28 .<br />

Respondent was directed to modify that portion <strong>of</strong> its order accordingly . 6 Id. Also, the<br />

court <strong>of</strong> appeals ruled Real Parties are limited to asking each physician to (1) state his o r<br />

her current net worth, and (2) the facts and methods used to calculate what each physicia n<br />

alleges is his or her current net worth . Id . at *28-29. (Apx . Tab G) .<br />

Relying on this <strong>Court</strong>'s decision in Luns<strong>for</strong>d v. Morris, 746 S .W .2d 471, 473 (Tex .<br />

1988), however, the court <strong>of</strong> appeals' majority's opinion rejected Relators' argument tha t<br />

Real Parties were required - be<strong>for</strong>e being entitled to net worth discovery - to make a<br />

prim facie case <strong>of</strong> entitlement to punitive damages . Id. at *7 . The court <strong>of</strong> appeals als o<br />

held Real Parties had pleaded facts sufficient to support discovery <strong>of</strong> net wort h<br />

in<strong>for</strong>mation . Id . at *16 .<br />

Justice Sullivan concurred in the result reached by the majority, but wrot e<br />

separately "only to note that the current <strong>Texas</strong> rule on net-worth discovery is no w<br />

decades-old and, in light <strong>of</strong> the evolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>Texas</strong> law, needs to be revisited ." Id . at *30 .<br />

He recounted the changes made by the Legislature since this <strong>Court</strong> decided Luns<strong>for</strong>d v .<br />

Morris, the case in which the <strong>Court</strong>, <strong>for</strong> the first time, allowed parties to discover an d<br />

° After an October 27, 2009 request by Relators' counsel <strong>for</strong> a stay <strong>of</strong> the net worth discovery (even as modified b y<br />

the court <strong>of</strong> appeals), Real Parties' counsel advised on November 6, 2009, that they oppose any stay <strong>of</strong> discover y<br />

while Relators' petition <strong>for</strong> writ <strong>of</strong> mandamus is pending in this <strong>Court</strong> . On November 6th, Real Parties notifie d<br />

Relators they have requested a hearing be<strong>for</strong>e the trial court, to be held on November 17, 2009, regarding modifyin g<br />

its discovery orders to comport with the court <strong>of</strong> appeals' order . See Exhibits "A," and "B" to Relators' Emergenc y<br />

Motion <strong>for</strong> Temporary Relief, filed contemporaneously with this <strong>Petition</strong> .<br />

3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!