discovery


In Re James Prince (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 12, 2006)(per curiam)
[discovery procedure, deposition, motion for sanctions, nonparty witness
MOTION OR WRIT GRANTED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Fowler, Edelman and Frost)
14-06-00895-CV        In Re: James Prince, Jr.
Appeal from 309th District Court of Harris County (Judge Frank Barlow Rynd)


In Re Whitworth (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 24, 2006)(per curiam)
[discovery dispute, mandamus denied]
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Fowler, Edelman and Frost
14-06-00672-CV In Re: Terri Whitworth
Appeal from 129th District Court of Harris County (Judge Grant Dorfman; name not shown on docket sheet)
In Re BP Products (Tex.App.– Houston [1st Dist.] August 4, 2006)(Alcala)
[discovery, apex deposition, objection, motion to strike, sufficiency of affidavit]
GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Higley
01-06-00613-CV In re BP Products North America, Inc.
Appeal from 212th District Court of Galveston County (Hon. Susan Elizabeth Criss)

In ordering or preventing an apex deposition, a trial court must apply the guidelines set out in Crown Central
Petroleum Corporation v. Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. 1995). In re Daisy Mfg. Co., 17 S.W.3d 654, 656
(Tex. 2000). Under Crown Central, a corporation may shield a high-level corporate official from a deposition
by filing a motion for a protective order with an affidavit by the official “denying any knowledge of relevant
facts.” Crown Central, 904 S.W.2d at 128.  Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] person has
knowledge of relevant facts when that person has or may have knowledge of any discoverable matter. The
person need not have admissible information or personal knowledge of the facts.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(c).
(“We conclude that Manzoni sufficiently denied any knowledge of relevant facts and that BP provided the
trial court with a sufficient affidavit under Crown Central. See id. at 175; Burlington, 99 S.W.3d at 326.
Conclusion
We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in striking BP’s affidavit. We therefore conditionally grant
BP’s petition for writ of mandamus, direct the trial court to vacate its June 21, 2006 order striking BP’s
affidavit, and direct the trial court to reinstate BP’s motion for protection.“)


In Re Baldridge (Tex.App.– Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 1, 2006)(per curiam)
[mandamus sought regarding trial court discovery orders]
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Per Curiam
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Guzman)
14-06-00647-CV In Re: William E. Baldridge, Jimi Lea Conway, D. Kimberli Wallace, TMPR, Inc., CMPR, Inc.,
Cliff Management Inc., Cliff Management I, Ltd. and Trimark Realty Investments Inc.
Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County (Judge Tony Lindsey)