IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00371-CV
IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AND
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. seek by
mandamus to vacate the trial court’s order of October 27, 2009 wherein it ordered
Toyota to “preserve any and all documents, records, data, electronically stored
information, and evidence relevant to Pennie Fay Green’s case, her Motion For
Sanctions, and her Motion For Contempt.”
Toyota argues in its Petition for Writ of Mandamus that the trial court abused its
discretion in issuing the October 27, 2009 order, which it claims is an order in
furtherance of sanctions, because the court’s plenary jurisdiction had long since expired.
In Green’s response to the Petition, she primarily argues that the trial court may
proceed to investigate and punish by contempt a violation of a discovery order in a
proceeding over which the trial court lost jurisdiction because its plenary power has
expired. But in Green’s motions filed in the trial court proceeding, it is clear that she
seeks discovery sanctions payable to her for the perceived violation of the discovery
order in addition to simply informing the court of the possibility of contemptuous
conduct on the part of Toyota.
It is not possible to tell, at this juncture, if the order rendered by the trial court is
for the trial court to proceed with its investigation of whether Toyota’s alleged failure to
comply with a discovery order justifies a determination of, and punishment for,
contempt or whether the trial court is proceeding to consider Green’s request for
sanctions payable to Green. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
without prejudice. By denial of the petition based on the record before us, we express
no opinion on the trial court’s jurisdiction to render a sanction order against Toyota
payable to Green.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed January 20, 2010
[OT06]
In re Toyota Page 2