In re Dawson
550 S.W.3d 625 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is precluded from designating a responsible third party after the statute of limitations has expired if the defendant failed to comply with its discovery obligations to timely and explicitly disclose that the person might be so designated.
Facts:
- On March 5, 2014, Melissa Dawson was injured when a television fell from a wall and struck her at Mary's Outpost #1, a bar owned by Two for Freedom, LLC.
- The television had been installed by an individual named Michael Graciano.
- Dawson sued Two for Freedom for her injuries and served discovery requests.
- One request asked Two for Freedom to identify any person who may be designated as a responsible third party, to which Two for Freedom responded, 'Defendant will supplement.'
- In response to a separate interrogatory asking who installed the television, Two for Freedom identified Michael Graciano by name.
- Two for Freedom's initial disclosures also included general, boilerplate language stating that Dawson's injuries were caused by 'persons or entities beyond [its] control or employ.'
- Before the statute of limitations on Dawson's claim expired, Two for Freedom did not supplement its response to identify Graciano as a potential responsible third party.
Procedural Posture:
- Melissa Dawson sued Two for Freedom, LLC in a Texas trial court for personal injuries.
- After the statute of limitations expired, Two for Freedom filed a motion for leave to designate Michael Graciano as a responsible third party.
- Dawson opposed the motion, arguing Two for Freedom failed to timely disclose Graciano as a potential responsible third party in its discovery responses.
- The trial court granted Two for Freedom's motion.
- Dawson sought a writ of mandamus from the intermediate court of appeals to compel the trial court to withdraw its order, but the court of appeals denied her request.
- Dawson then filed an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking a writ of mandamus against the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's failure to explicitly identify a person as a potential responsible third party in response to a direct discovery request preclude the defendant from designating that person as a responsible third party after the statute of limitations has run, even if the person's name was mentioned in a different discovery response?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A defendant's failure to explicitly identify a person as a potential responsible third party in response to a direct discovery request precludes such a designation after the statute of limitations has run. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.004(d) prohibits a post-limitations designation if the defendant failed to timely disclose the person's potential designation. Two for Freedom's discovery responses were insufficient; answering 'Defendant will supplement' to a direct request under Rule 194.2(l) for responsible third parties is not a complete or timely response. Merely mentioning Graciano's name in an answer to a different interrogatory, combined with boilerplate language about unnamed third parties, did not satisfy the defendant's obligation to put Dawson on notice. The rules are designed to prevent defendants from 'lying behind the log' and ambushing a plaintiff with a blame-shifting strategy after the plaintiff can no longer sue the newly identified party. Because the trial court's erroneous grant of the designation skews the proceedings and cannot be adequately remedied on appeal, mandamus relief is appropriate for the plaintiff, just as it is for a defendant when a designation is improperly denied.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards intended to prevent trial by ambush in proportionate responsibility cases. It clarifies that a defendant's discovery obligation to disclose potential responsible third parties requires explicit and direct responses, not just scattered clues that a plaintiff must piece together. The ruling places the burden squarely on defendants to be forthcoming if they wish to preserve their right to a post-limitations designation. Consequently, this precedent will likely discourage vague or evasive discovery tactics and compel defendants to make strategic decisions about blaming third parties before the statute of limitations expires, thereby promoting fairness and preventing plaintiffs from having to defend against an 'empty chair' they can no longer sue.
