In the recent case, Rodriguez v. Crutchfield, decided by the Dallas Court of Appeals, we learn the importance of clearly evaluating all the parties we think may have liability and the importance of considering the statute of limitations in that evaluation.
In the case, Richard Rodriguez, a temporary worker driving a forklift
The Texas Supreme Court recently reviewed an eminent domain, State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates, where the trial court excluded the state’s expert report on the fair market value of real property because he failed to account for the revenue generated by the use of the property.
Specifically, the State of Texas condemned a 3,950-square foot parcel of
A recent Dallas Court of Appeals case, MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, provides some insights on electronic discovery in Texas.
The case essentially involves two main entities: MRT, Inc. and Inter-University Micro-Electronics Center ("IMEC"), though several other related parties and entities were involved. Basically, IMEC through its agent, Roger Vounckx, persuaded MRT and the several related individuals and entities to invest in a new technology, PhotonLink, which purportedly provided faster and more efficient computer chip communication.
When the investment proved unsuccessful, MRT sued IMEC for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. During the litigation, MRT served IMEC with requests for production, but did not confer with IMEC beforehand to ascertain how it stored its information electronically. The requests sought any computer generated or stored information relevant to the lawsuit.
At depositions, MRT’s counsel learned that IMEC had some computer back up tapes it had not produced. These tapes were apparently used for retrieval if the data base became corrupted and not for archival preservation. Because IMEC delayed producing the tapes, MRT filed a motion to compel. IMEC objected to production because: (1) extracting information from the tapes was too burdensome given there was no indication relevant information was stored on the back up tapes, which would take hours to search; and (2) IMEC had destroyed the back up tapes related to the relevant time period after MRT had sued it.
The trial court denied MRT’s request for a continuance to review the backup tapes and it denied its spoliation motion. MRT lost at trial and appealed.
Did IMEC improperly withhold the backup tapes? Did IMEC spoliate evidence when it destroyed the backup tapes after MRT filed the lawsuit? Read the extended entry to learn what the court decided. Or if you would rather read the opinion, you can get it HERE.
Continue Reading Electronic Discovery: Duty to Preserve and Produce Electronic Documents
What should you do if you show up for a bench trial and there is no court reporter?
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently decided an appeal raising this issue. In Kohler v. M & M Truck Conversions, M & M contractually hired Kohler to install a wheelchair lift and related hydraulic equipment
What is the legal effect of a provision voiding a contract? This was the issue in the Fourth Court of Appeals case Mr. W. Fireworks Inc. v. Ozuna.
In the case, Mr. W, between September of 2002 and February of 2003, contracted for the exclusive right to sell firework on the land of three different
Yet another summary judgment gone wrong.
Sundance Resources, Inc. v. Ole Brook Energy Services, Inc. reminds me of my sixth grade math teacher; she used to deduct points from tests when students failed to show their work. In this case, the attorneys concluded they were entitled to summary judgment but they didn’t show
Ever heard of the continuing contract doctrine? It’s the sister of the continuing tort doctrine. Both operate as an exception to the statute of limitations that allows a claimant to recover for contract breaches that occur after the accrual date.
But can the continuing contract doctrine apply to contracts other than an installment contract?
This issue was before
When should a party specially except to the grounds of a summary judgment motion? Should the non-movant specially except when the grounds are ambiguous? Or if the grounds are not expressly present?
The Dallas Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Garza v. CTX Mortgage Company, LLC.
The Garzas sued CTX for various causes
How effective is a motion for summary judgment that has no evidence attached to it? Not very. Sometimes you can dodge a few bullets. Ultimately, you will get hit. That’s what happened in the Dallas Court of Appeals’ opinion in American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc. v. Yoonessi.
The American Board of