Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
DISSENTING OPINION
No. 04-16-00590-CV
IN RE THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Dissenting Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 26, 2017
Because I would hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion, I respectfully dissent. First,
unlike In re Michelin North America, Inc., No. 14-15-00578-CV, 2015 WL 7456101 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 24, 2015, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.), and In re
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 437 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, orig. proceeding),
Goodyear failed to timely file evidence to support its objections to plaintiffs’ discovery request.
Second, the trial court’s order expressly does not require Goodyear to make a tire it is not currently
manufacturing. Third, Goodyear has judicially admitted it currently has the machine used to
manufacture and design the tire at issue at its Danville plant (or a nearly identical machine).
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-06-12009-DCVAJA, styled Elvia Munoz, et al., v. The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co, et al., pending in the 365th Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas, the Honorable Amado J.
Abascal, III presiding.
Dissenting Opinion 04-16-00590-CV
Inspection and observation of this machine falls squarely within the scope of permissible discovery
for plaintiffs’ manufacturing and design defect claims.
THE MAJORITY ERRS BY RELYING ON AN UNTIMELY FILED DECLARATION
Goodyear did not timely file any evidence to support its objections, and the trial court did
not consider untimely evidence. Goodyear argues the trial court erred by not considering its
evidence because the deadline in Rule 193.4 does not apply to motions to compel under Rule 215.
Essentially, Goodyear’s position is that there is no deadline to file evidence to support a discovery
objection at a hearing on a motion to compel.
To support its holding, the majority relies solely on the declaration of Monroe Griffith,
which Goodyear served one day before the November 4 motion to compel hearing. The majority
justifies relying on Griffith’s declaration because:
Plaintiffs did not raise a timeliness objection at the November 4 hearing and nothing
stated by the trial judge at that hearing indicated he was making an evidentiary
ruling excluding the Griffith declaration from consideration. Therefore, the Griffith
declaration was before the trial court when it ruled upon the Plaintiffs’ motion.
This is not Goodyear’s argument. The majority also cites no authority. Under Rule 193.4(a),
Goodyear had the burden to obtain the trial court’s permission to consider Griffith’s declaration
because it was not filed at least seven days before the hearing. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.4(a)
(providing “evidence” supporting a discovery objection “may be . . . affidavits served at least
seven days before the hearing or at such other reasonable time as the court permits”) (emphasis
added). Nothing in the record shows Goodyear obtained the trial court’s permission to file untimely
evidence, and the trial court’s orders expressly state the court considered only timely filed
evidence. Thus, the Griffith affidavit was not before the trial court. See id.
Furthermore, the majority’s apparent reliance on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1
is misplaced. Rule 33.1 requires a party to object as a prerequisite for presenting a complaint for
-2-
Dissenting Opinion 04-16-00590-CV
appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. Rule 33.1’s preservation rule applies only to a party
seeking to alter or modify the trial court’s order or judgment. See City of San Antonio v.
Winkenhower, 875 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, writ denied). Plaintiffs are
not seeking to alter or modify the trial court’s order, Goodyear is. Thus, the majority errs by
requiring the plaintiffs, who agree with the trial court’s ruling, to have objected to the untimely
evidence. See id.
The majority erroneously establishes a presumption that all evidence is before the trial
court unless there is an objection to the evidence as untimely and a ruling on that objection. The
Supreme Court of Texas has held an untimely filed affidavit—without some indication that the
trial court granted leave to file untimely evidence—“was not properly before the trial court” in the
summary judgment context. Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657, 663 (Tex. 1996). This
court has held that a logical extension of this rule is that parties “[a]re not required to object to [a]
response as untimely filed.” Neimes v. Ta, 985 S.W.2d 132, 138 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998,
pet. dism’d by agr.). Without any substantive discussion, the majority creates new law and
recognizes a contrary rule for a nearly identical set of circumstances.
Goodyear presented no timely evidence to support its objections and assertions of privilege.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.4(a). Goodyear failed to obtain the trial court’s permission to present
evidence served on plaintiffs the day before the motion to compel hearing. Plaintiffs were not
required to object to the evidence as untimely, and the trial court expressly declined to consider
Goodyear’s evidence because it was untimely. Thus, there was no evidence before the trial court
to support Goodyear’s objections to plaintiffs’ discovery request. Because Goodyear failed to
support its objections and assertions of privilege under Rule 193.4, this case is readily
distinguishable from Michelin and Goodyear, in which the relators presented evidence to support
their objections.
-3-
Dissenting Opinion 04-16-00590-CV
THE MAJORITY ERRS BY NOT READING THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER AS A WHOLE
The majority also holds, without explanation, “[t]he discovery order requires the creation
of evidence.” Goodyear argues the trial court’s order requires the creation of new evidence by
ordering Goodyear to build tires it does not currently manufacture. A trial court’s order “is to be
read as a whole” and “should be interpreted with reference to the entire order.” Lone Star Cement
Corp. v. Fair, 467 S.W.2d 402, 405 (Tex. 1971). First, the trial court’s order expressly provides,
“Goodyear is not required to make any new tire designs or perform any new tire manufacturing
processes that do not already exist.” Second, the order expressly limits the order to “allow[ing]
nothing but visual observation and videotaping” of the normal operation of the tire-building
machine that was used in the manufacturing of the tire that is the subject of this lawsuit (or a nearly
identical machine). Third, the order contains no decretal language requiring Goodyear to do
anything except to “allow visual observation and videotaping” of “the RTN tire machines.”
Fourth, the language on which Goodyear relies is descriptive of the machines plaintiffs
may video record; it is not prescriptive of any further action by Goodyear. The trial court’s order
contemplates Goodyear might be unable to determine the exact machine that built the tire at issue.
Because Goodyear admitted it has several similar tire-building machines that were used to
manufacture the subject tire and no longer makes the subject tire, the order clarifies which
machines may be observed and video recorded by reference to the tires Goodyear is currently
making with those machines. Contrary to the majority’s and Goodyear’s suggestions, there is
nothing in the trial court’s order requiring Goodyear to make, manufacture, or design a new tire,
and the order does not require Goodyear to interrupt existing operations. Although the trial court’s
order is not a model of clarity, it simply does not require Goodyear to create a tire wholly out of
new cloth.
-4-
Dissenting Opinion 04-16-00590-CV
THE MAJORITY ERRS BY FAILING TO ACCOUNT FOR GOODYEAR’S JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
THAT EFFECTIVELY DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM MICHELIN AND GOODYEAR
The majority incorrectly states plaintiffs, during their inspection and recording, “will
observe and record work . . . using different or modified machines.” The majority ignores
Goodyear’s judicial admissions during the motion to compel hearing and oral argument. Goodyear
admitted in the trial court and during oral argument that the tire at issue was created using a
particular tire-building machine that the parties refer to as an “RTN” machine. Goodyear admitted
during the motion to compel hearing that Goodyear had ten of those RTN machines at its Danville
plant. Goodyear represented to this court at oral argument that when it manufactured the tire at
issue, it had ten such RTN machines, and it continues to use three of those RTN machines. Thus,
it is undisputed that Goodyear is currently using either the exact same RTN machine that built the
tire at issue or an RTN machine that is nearly identical to the machine that built the tire at issue.
Consequently, the majority errs by relying on Goodyear, in which “[t]he undisputed affidavit
evidence. . . established . . . the equipment . . . used to manufacture the tire had been removed
from the plant.” 437 S.W.3d at 915. Michelin is also distinguishable because in that case the relator
produced evidence showing the machines to be inspected had been modified. Here, Goodyear
failed to produce evidence showing it does not have the RTN machine used to build the tire at
issue or a nearly identical machine.
Plaintiffs’ suit includes allegations that Goodyear designed and manufactured a defective
tire. It is inconceivable that an inspection and observation of the RTN machine used to manufacture
and design the tire at issue is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of at least some
admissible evidence to prove plaintiffs’ manufacturing and design defect claims. See Gharda USA,
Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338, 352 (Tex. 2015) (requiring, for a manufacturing-defect
claim, plaintiffs to prove product deviated from design); Smith v. Aqua-Flo, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 473,
-5-
Dissenting Opinion 04-16-00590-CV
477 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 82.005). Therefore, plaintiffs’ request falls squarely within the scope of permissible
discovery. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a). Because Goodyear presented no timely evidence to support
its objections and assertions of privilege, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. For these
reasons, Goodyear’s request for mandamus relief must be denied.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
-6-