in Re Scott Rhodes and Tim Whitten ( 2018 )

ACCEPTED
03-17-00870-CV
21602520
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/4/2018 11:28 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-17-00870-CV
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/4/2018 11:28:35 AM
__________________________________________________________________
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
IN RE LEVIEN
__________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding from Cause No. D-1-GN-17-001-590
53rd District Court
Travis County, Texas
__________________________________________________________________
SALLEE S. SMYTH ELLEN A. YARRELL
Attorney at Law Ellen A. Yarrell, P.C.
SBT# 18779400 SBT# 22138500
800 Jackson Street 2900 Weslayan, Suite 350
Richmond, Texas 77469 Houston, Texas 77027
(281) 238-6200 (713) 621-3332
(281) 238-6202 (Fax) (713) 621-3669 (Fax)
smyth.sallee@gmail.com ellen@eayatty.com
Attorneys for Real Parties’ In Interest
KENNETH LEVIEN, BARRY LEVIEN & PHILIP LEVIEN,
Trustees on Behalf of the Trust Established under Article Seven of
the Last Will and Testament of Arnold Levien
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED, IN THE ALTERNATIVE
OBJECTION TO, ALTERNATIVELY REQUEST FOR,
ORAL ARGUMENT
Real Parties’ in Interest, the Trustees, assert that oral argument in this matter
is not warranted and should be denied. However, in the event this Court should
grant Relators’ request for oral argument, then Real Parties’ In Interest, the
Trustees, request the opportunity to argue in response.
i
ABBREVIATIONS
Mandamus Record ………………………………………………… MR
Supplemental Mandamus Record ………………………………… Supp. MR
Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus attaches documents which are
referenced as Appendix Items 1 through 9. In addition, Relators have filed a
mandamus Record including documents referenced in Tabs 1 through 12. While
Relator’s mandamus Appendix encompasses all items included in the Record, their
numbering is not consistent. To avoid confusion, the Trustees’ response will refer
only to the documents included in the mandamus Record, specifically to Tabs 1
through 12 and include reference to the page number where that item appears in
the PDF Record document, for example MR 12:562 refers to the Record, Tab 12 at
PDF document page 562.
Additional documents included in a Supplemental Mandamus Record will be
referenced as MR 13 through MR 22, reflecting the tab numbers assigned to each
supplemental document included.
Because several parties bear the same surname and/or exist in similar
capacities, for the convenience of the court and ease of understanding the
following references will be used:
PROPER NAME POSSIBLE REFERENCES
TIM WHITTEN Relator; Whitten
SCOTT RHODES Relator; Rhodes
HARLAN LEVIEN Defendants; Harlan or
and STEPHEN LEVIEN Stephen
PARVIN JOHNSON, JR Defendants; Johnson or Ives
KENNETH LEVIEN, Real Parties in Interest, the
BARRY LEVIEN and Trustees;
PHILIP LEVIEN
ii
SUPPLEMENT TO IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL
Real Parties’ in Interest, the Trustees, identify the following additional
counsel of record on their behalf in this original proceeding:
Sallee S. Smyth
Attorney at Law
SBT# 18779400
800 Jackson Street
Richmond, Texas 77469
(713) 238-6200
(713) 238-6202 (Fax)
smyth.sallee@gmail.com
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
OBJECTION TO, ALTERNATIVELY REQUEST FOR,
ORAL ARGUMENT ……………………………………………. i
ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………. ii
SUPPLEMENT TO IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL …….. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………. iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………… vi
THE TRUSTEES’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE ………………... ix
RESPONSE TO ISSUE PRESENTED …………………………….. x
THE TRUSTEES’ STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………… 1
SUMMARY OF THE TRUSTEES’ ARGUMENTS ………………… 5
STANDARD OF REVIEW ……………………………………….. 7
RESPONSE TO ISSUE ONE (Restated)
The trial court properly denied Relators’ application and motion
for protection which sought to excuse their required appearance as
non-party witnesses at trial pursuant to trial subpoenas properly
issued and served ………………………………………………….. 8
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONSE TO ISSUE ONE
A. The Order challenged on mandamus does not compel
disclosure of any specific testimony, privileged or
otherwise ……………………………………………………… 8
iv
PAGE
B. Existing trial court rulings already protecting the
disclosure of privileged information from Whitten
and Rhodes render mandamus moot ………………………… 13
C. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus under the
circumstances presented is clearly unfounded ……………….. 16
D. Mandamus relief will severely prejudice the Trustees right
to prosecute their claims and will foreclose a credibility
determination by the jury …………………………………….. 17
1. The jury should be allowed to judge the witnesses’
credibility ……………………………………………… 17
2. Evidentiary rulings and the withdrawal of objections
subsequent to the Relators depositions leave questions
unanswered ……………………………………………. 18
3. Discovery occurring after the Relators depositions
generate new areas of examination ……………………. 18
4. By taking Relators’ depositions, the Trustees did not
waive their right to subpoena the Relators as witnesses
for trial ………………………………………………… 19
5. Relators’ suggestion that this Court’s prior mandamus
decision excuses their testimony at trial is misplaced ….. 20
6. In summary, mandamus is not warranted ……………… 22
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ……………………………………… 22
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE …………………….. 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ……………………………………….. 24
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ………………………………….. 25
v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
TEXAS RULES
Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.1 ……………………………………………. 5, 10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.2 …………………………………………… .. 5, 10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(e) ………………………………………… .. ix, 2, 10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5 …………………………………………… .. 6, 10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5(b)(2) ……………………………………… 10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b) …………………………………………. 10
Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b)(1-5) ……………………………………. 11
Tex. R. Civ. P. 206.6(b) …………………………………………. 17
Tex. R. Evid. 503 ………………………………………………… 6
TEXAS CASES
Borden, Inc. v. Valdez,
773 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989,
no writ) ……………………………………………………….. 12
Camarena v. Tex. Emp't Comm'n,
754 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. 1988) ………………………………... 16
City of Garland v. Louton,
691 S.W.2d 603 (Tex. 1985) ………………………………… 16
City of Keller v. Wilson,
168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) ………………………………… 17
vi
PAGE
Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia,
909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) …………………………………. 15
Duval County Ranch v. Alamo Lumber Co.,
663 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1983, writ ref’d
n.r.e.) …………………………………………………………... 12
Echols v. Olivarez,
85 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.) …………… 18
Holcombe v. Fowler,
118 Tex. 42, 9 S.W.2d 1028 (Tex. 1928) ……………………. 15
In re Bexar County Criminal District Attorneys’ Office,
224 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) ……………… 7, 11
In re Hays County Crim. Dist. Attorney’s Office & Texas
Dept. of Family and Protective Servs.,
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8088 (Tex. App. – Austin
October 1, 2010, orig. proceeding) ……………………………. 16
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) …………………………………. 15
In re Levien,
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4391 (Tex. App. – Austin
April 30, 2015) (orig. proceeding) (mem. opinion) …………… 1, 20
In re Levien,
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 9409 (Tex. App. – Austin
August 26, 2016) (orig. proceeding) (mem. opinion) …………. 1
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Foster,
593 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. -- Eastland 1979, no writ) ………. 12
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Valdez,
863 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. 1993) ……………………………………. 20
vii
PAGE
Stoufflet v. Stoufflet,
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1899 (Tex. App. – Austin
March 20, 2009, no pet.) ……………………………………… 15
Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) …………………………………. 7, 17
viii
THE TRUSTEES’ STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Underlying Proceeding. The primary suit, pending in the 423rd
District Court of Bastrop County, is one brought by the Trustees against the
Defendants, two brothers who are former beneficiaries of a Trust and their adult
adoptees, alleging various causes of action sounding in fraud and civil conspiracy.
These claims primarily challenge the validity and/or effect of two separate adult
adoption orders and seek to hold the Defendants liable for damages incurred by the
Trust due to their conduct. Relators in this mandamus, Whitten and Rhodes,
represented the Brothers in the adult adoption proceedings and are non-party
witnesses in the fraud litigation.
Respondent. Respondent is the Honorable David Phillips, Visiting Judge in the
53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas where Relators’ motion for protection
the subject of this mandamus was heard in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P.
176.6(e).
Respondent’s actions. Respondent denied Relators’ application and motion for
protection which sought to excuse their appearance as witnesses at trial pursuant to
properly served trial subpoenas issued by the Trustees. More specifically, Relators
challenge the trial court’s December 19, 2017 Order Denying Scott Rhodes’ and
Tim Whitten’s Application and Motion for Protection, which order generally
directs them “to attend and give testimony at the trial relating to the case entitled
"Kenneth Levien, Barry Levien and Philip Levien, Trustees on Behalf of the Trust
Established under Article Seven of the Last Will and Testament of Arnold Levien,
Plaintiffs v. Harlan Levien and Stephen Levien, Defendants" and filed under Cause
No. 423-2681 pending in the 423rd Judicial District Court of Bastrop County,
Texas, and remain at that place from day to day until discharged by the Court or
Ellen A. Yarrell.” (MR 12:562)
Relators contend that the December 19, 2017 order compels Relators disclosure of
privileged information making it subject to mandamus relief. The Trustees
disagree.
ix
RESPONSE TO ISSUE PRESENTED
RESPONSE TO ISSUE ONE: The trial court properly denied Relators’
application and motion for protection which sought to excuse their required
appearance as non-party witnesses at trial pursuant to trial subpoenas properly
issued and served.
x
THE TRUSTEES’ STATEMENT OF FACTS
Based on matters considered in two prior mandamus proceedings 1, this
Court is already familiar with a majority of the background facts and allegations
surrounding the Trustees complaints against the Defendants in the underlying
Bastrop County litigation. Those facts need not be detailed or repeated here to
understand and analyze the issue presented for review.
Simply enough, two adult adoption proceedings stand at the center of the
Trustees’ claims against the Defendants in the Bastrop County litigation pending
under Cause No. 423-2681 and styled Kenneth Levien, Barry Levien and Philip
Levien, Trustees on Behalf of the Trust Established under Article Seven of the Last
Will and Testament of Arnold Levien, Plaintiffs v. Harlan Levien and Stephen
Levien, Defendants.
Relators, Scott Rhodes and Tim Whitten, assisted in the representation of
Defendants, Harlan Levien and Stephen Levien, in the 2012 adoption proceedings
and as a result they have been identified by all parties during discovery and in
required pre-trial filings as non-party trial witnesses in the Bastrop County suit
which is set to begin trial before a jury on January 29, 2018. (Supp. MR 12; Supp.
MR 14)
1
In re Levien, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4391 (Tex. App. – Austin April 30, 2015) (orig.
proceeding) (mem. opinion); In re Levien, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 9409 (Tex. App. – Austin
August 26, 2016) (orig. proceeding) (mem. opinion)
1
In December 2016, during the discovery phase of the Bastrop County suit,
Rhodes and Whitten were both deposed and subpoenaed to produce documents.
(MR 3:218, 221; MR 4:334, 337) All objections and claims of privilege asserted
during those depositions as well as those directed to the related subpoenas duces
tecum have now been resolved, either by the parties Rule 11 Agreement
(MR:7:466) or rulings from the 53rd District Court of Travis County where
Relators sought relief pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(e). (MR 9:502; Supp. MR
15)
On June 14, 2017, Rhodes and Whitten were each served in Travis County
with trial subpoenas issued by the Trustees in contemplation of a jury trial
scheduled to commence in the Bastrop County litigation on October 16, 2017.
(Supp. MR 16; Supp. MR 17) On that same date, under Cause No. D-1-GN-17-
001590 in the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, Rhodes and
Whitten filed Applications and Motions for Protection from the trial subpoenas.
(Supp. MR 18; Supp. MR 19) On June 15, 2017 the Trustees filed separate
motions to compel discovery relating to matters involving Whitten and Rhodes
depositions. (MR1:4; MR 2:116)
Whitten and Rhodes motions for protection from the trial subpoenas were
heard and denied by Judge Amy Clark Meachum, 201st Civil District Court Judge,
2
on September 14, 2017. (MR8:489-490)
Due to the events of Hurricane Harvey and its impact on the physical offices
of Trustees’ trial counsel, the Trustees were forced to request a continuance of the
October 16, 2017 trial setting which was granted during a status conference before
the Bastrop County District Court on October 11, 2017. (MR 8:497, 499) Trial
was reset to January 29, 2018. (MR 8:497) As a result, the Trustees issued new
trial subpoenas to Rhodes and Whitten to appear and give testimony on January 31,
2018 which subpoenas were duly served on Rhodes and Whitten in Travis County
on October 25, 2017. (MR 8:491, 494)
In light of Relators resistance to the Trustees prior trial subpoenas and the
Travis County District Court’s rulings denying Relators request for protection, on
October 30, 2017 the Bastrop County District Court signed Orders obligating
Whitten and Rhodes to appear for trial on January 31, 2018 subject only to their
right to seek further protective orders. (MR 8:497, 499)
On November 16, 2017 a hearing was held in Travis County to obtain
rulings on the objections and privileges asserted during Whitten and Rhodes earlier
depositions. (Supp. MR 15) At that hearing, Judge Meachum considered and
ruled only on objections and privileges raised during Rhodes deposition. (Supp.
MR 15) Judge Meachum ordered the parties to confer regarding the objections
filed on Whitten’s behalf and set a timetable to address these matters. (Supp. MR
3
15) Judge Meachum ultimately ruled on those matters for which an agreement
could not be reached and signed an order regarding Whitten’s objections on
December 15, 2017. (MR 9:502)
On December 1, 2017, in the existing Travis County cause, Relators again
filed an application for protective order regarding the trial subpoenas issued and
served in connection with the January 2018 trial setting. (MR 6:439) The Trustees
filed a written response opposing the motion for protective order. (MR 8:470)
Defendants filed a written response taking the position that Relators presence as
live witnesses at trial was unnecessary. (MR 10:511) Relators filed an additional
reply (MR 11:515) and a hearing on Relators’ application was held on December
19, 2017 before the Hon. David Phillips, Visiting Judge in the 53rd District Court
of Travis County, Texas. (MR 12:562) Judge Phillips denied the Relators’ motion
without prejudice to their right to seek further relief from the Bastrop County
District Court presiding over the primary litigation. (MR 12:562) Relators have
not sought protection in the Bastrop County District Court, but instead have filed
this mandamus proceeding challenging Judge Phillips December 19, 2017 Order
Denying Scott Rhodes and Tim Whitten’s Application and Motion for Protection.
(MR 12:562)
4
SUMMARY OF THE TRUSTEES’ ARGUMENTS
By this mandamus proceeding, Relators seek to avoid their appearance as
live witnesses at trial. The entire premise of Relators’ argument relies on the
assertion that their expected trial examination will invade the attorney client and
work product privileges. As a result, they contend that Judge Phillips December
19, 2017 Order compelling their appearance at trial equates to an order forcing
disclosure of privileged and protected information justifying mandamus relief.
First and foremost, the challenged Order does not speak to the scope of
Relators’ testimony at trial but merely directs them to appear and give testimony in
the Bastrop County proceedings on January 31, 2018. (MR 12:562) The
subpoenas at issue are purely trial subpoenas which comply with the form required
under Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.1 and Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.2. (MR 8:491, 494) Nothing in
those rules require the Trustees to identify the nature or scope of the witnesses
expected examination and as such it was impossible for the trial court to “pre-
judge” the admissibility of such testimony based solely on the Relators
speculations.
Enforceable trial court rulings and agreements between the parties which
address all of the objections and privileges asserted during Whitten and Rhodes
prior depositions already exist to protect against disclosure of the attorney client
and work product privileged information which Relators detail as a concern within
5
their mandamus petition, rendering this mandamus proceeding entirely moot on
those issues before the petition was even filed.
To the extent that Relators face new and/or previously unchartered areas of
questioning at trial which somehow implicates the provisions of Tex. R. Civ. P.
192.5 (regarding protection of attorney work product) or Tex. R. Evid. 503
(regarding protection of attorney client privileged information), Judge Duggan,
presiding over the Bastrop County proceedings, is more than capable of addressing
any and all objections and/or claims of privilege as they arise during trial, making
this mandamus proceeding wholly unfounded as to those speculative matters.
Finally, there are numerous reasons which compel the Relators live
testimony at trial, the most significant being to provide the jury an opportunity to
judge their credibility and to afford the Trustees an opportunity to procure answers
to the many questions which remain unanswered after orders overruling and/or
agreements withdrawing objections and privileges can now be considered. Any
potential benefits claimed by Relators in this mandamus proceeding do not
outweigh the prejudice which will be caused by forestalling the Trustees’ right to
fully and further examine Whitten and Rhodes as witnesses before a jury.
6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A writ of mandamus will issue only to correct trial court actions when there
has been a clear abuse of discretion and when the relator has no adequate remedy
on appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).
A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary
manner without reference to guiding rules and principles. Id. To obtain
mandamus relief, Relators must establish that the trial court could reasonably have
reached only one conclusion. Id. at 840.
In this case, the trial court has properly exercised its discretion denying
protection from a trial subpoena and directing Relators to attend and give
testimony at trial, nothing more and nothing less. (MR 12:562)
Although Relators do not specify a standard of review within their
mandamus petition, they assert that the trial court’s December 19, 2017 challenged
Order forces them to disclose privileged information justifying mandamus relief,
citing In re Bexar County Criminal District Attorneys’ Office, 224 S.W.3d 182,
185 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The Trustees contend that Relators have
grossly overstated the trial court’s ruling as well as the applicability of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Bexar County, supra., arguing instead that under the
requisite standards for mandamus review, no abuse of discretion has occurred.
7
RESPONSE TO ISSUE ONE (Restated)
The trial court properly denied Relators’ application and motion for
protection which sought to excuse their required appearance as non-
party witnesses at trial pursuant to trial subpoenas properly issued and
served.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONSE TO ISSUE ONE
A. The Order challenged on mandamus does not compel disclosure of any
specific testimony, privileged or otherwise.
Relators entire challenge upon mandamus is premised upon their claim that
the trial court’s December 19, 2017 Order compels Whitten and Rhodes, prior
attorneys for two of the Defendants in the Bastrop County litigation, to disclose
privileged information about that representation. Clearly this claim overstates the
terms of the Order they challenge which provides only the following:
[Whitten and Rhodes] shall appear in the 423rd District Court of
Bastrop County, Texas, located at the Bastrop County Courthouse,
804 Pecan Street, Bastrop, Texas 78602 at 9:00 a.m. on January 31,
2018 to attend and give testimony at the trial relating to the case
entitled “Kenneth Levien, Barry Levien and Philip Levien, Trustees on
Behalf of the Trust Established under Article Seven of the Last Will
and Testament of Arnold Levien, Plaintiffs v. Harlan Levien and
Stephen Levien, Defendants" and filed under Cause No. 423-2681
pending in the 423rd Judicial District Court of Bastrop County, Texas,
and remain at that place from day to day until discharged by the Court
or Ellen A. Yarrell.
(MR 12:562)
Relators mandamus challenge of this simple directive for their appearance at
trial relies solely on their subjective belief that the only testimony they can
8
possibly provide will be testimony subject to protection under either the attorney
client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The mandamus record
establishes that this is simply not the case.
The Trustees note that there were a variety of questions and topics revealed
during the Relators prior depositions to which no objections and/or privileges were
ever asserted, including time frames of representation, when or if they met with
any of the Defendants, specific client identification and questions regarding their
billing. (MR 1: 21, 29-31, 38-39 , 57, 76, 81, 92 and 96; MR 2: 147, 157, 171,
172) All of these areas of examination live at trial are clearly permitted.
Further, regarding those deposition questions to which objections and/or
privileges were raised, subsequent trial court orders which overrule some of these
claims as well as subsequent agreements between the parties withdrawing a
number of those prior objections leave numerous questions wholly unanswered by
both Whitten and Rhodes, making it necessary for them to now answer those
questions live at trial. (MR 1:37, 43, 45, 46, 62- 63, 65, 72, 73, 75-76, 79, 82-83;
MR 2:141, 145, 147, 153, 154, 183, 191; MR 7:466; MR 9:502; Supp. MR 15)
Finally, discovery taking place after Whitten and Rhodes were deposed
identified areas for examination of these two witnesses not yet covered in their
depositions and to the extent that all discovery deadlines have now passed under
9
the applicable Docket Control Order, the Trustees may only seek answers to these
new questions through an examination of the witnesses at trial. (Supp. MR 20)
For these and other strategic reasons, the Trustees issued general trial
subpoenas in the form required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.1 and 176.2 which were
properly served on Whitten and Rhodes. (MR 8:491, 494) These subpoenas did
not specify the nature or scope of the witnesses expected examination, nor were
they required to. Even so, Whitten and Rhodes incorrectly presume that no
testimony they can offer at trial will be outside the protective bubble of the
attorney client or work product privilege. Based solely on this speculative
misconception, they sought protection under the auspices of Tex. R. Civ. P.
192.5(b)(2) which requires a showing by the requesting party of substantial need
for the information which cannot be obtained without undue hardship before the
information may be compelled. (MR 6:439) Relators approach to their application
for protection, and hence their arguments on mandamus, are completely misplaced.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(e), authorizing an individual to seek protection from a
subpoena, implicates the provisions of Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b) which gives the
trial court discretion to grant a protective order as necessary to protect against any
number of concerns including the invasion of personal rights and the protection
against disclosure of attorney work product as detailed in Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5.
(… “the court may make any order in the interest of justice” …) (Emphasis added)
10
If warranted, the trial court may order that (1) the requested inquiry not be sought
in whole or in part; (2) the extent or subject matter of the inquiry be limited; (3) the
inquiry not be undertaken at the time or place specified; (4) the inquiry be
undertaken upon terms or conditions as directed by the court; or (5) the results of
the inquiry be sealed or otherwise protected. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b)(1-5)
(Emphasis added)
In this case, Relators attempted to transform a general, straightforward trial
subpoena into a specific, detailed request for protected and privileged information
by hypothesizing and speculating on the scope of the Trustees’ expected
examination of them at trial solely because Relators are attorneys who previously
represented two of the Defendants in proceedings relevant to the Bastrop County
litigation. In doing so, Relators narrowly focused their arguments supporting
protection in the trial court (and now on mandamus) on the Texas Supreme Court’s
holding in In re Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, supra.,
specifically addressing the standards to discover attorney work product. In turn,
this focus improperly attempted to shift the burden of securing a protective order
from the Relators to the Trustees. This narrow and limited attack on an otherwise
broad, general trial subpoena is misplaced and Whitten and Rhodes deserve no
special treatment under the circumstances simply because they are lawyers to
which attorney client and work product privileges may apply.
11
In the context of discovery, it has been said that such privileges were never
intended to foreclose any opportunity to depose or examine an attorney, but rather
only precludes those questions which may somehow invade upon the attorney-
client confidences. Borden, Inc. v. Valdez, 773 S.W.2d 718, 720-21 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 1989, no writ). An attorney may not avoid examination in its
entirety merely because some matters may be privileged, but must object when
those inquiries are raised. Id. Other matters may exist which are not privileged
and which an attorney may be called upon to answer … [f]or instance, the
attorney-client privilege certainly does not encompass such nonconfidential
matters as the terms and conditions of an attorney's employment and the purpose
for which an attorney has been engaged.” Id. citing Duval County Ranch v. Alamo
Lumber Co., 663 S.W.2d 627, 634 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
and Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Foster, 593 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Tex.. App. --
Eastland 1979, no writ). These principles should apply equally in the context of an
attorney’s examination, whether at a deposition or during testimony at trial.
In this case, the trial court clearly took a much broader view of the Relators
protective order issue, that being whether or not the witnesses should appear live at
trial. Ultimately in the exercise of its discretion over that issue, the trial court
determined that the Trustees’ basis for having Whitten and Rhodes appear live at
trial outweighed any of the reasons offered to support a motion for protection,
12
clearly trusting that Relators potential concerns, if any, could be ably addressed by
Judge Duggan while presiding over their testimony at trial in the Bastrop County
litigation.
Because the trial court properly exercised its discretion and more
significantly, did not order the disclosure of privileged or protected information,
mandamus should be denied.
B. Existing trial court rulings already protecting the disclosure of privileged
information from Whitten and Rhodes render mandamus moot.
The Trustees cannot fault Relators, as attorneys, for consistently seeking to
guard against the disclosure of privileged or protected information regarding their
former clients. However, in asserting their arguments which seek to completely
foreclose their live testimony at trial, Relators fully ignore that the majority of their
concerns as argued before the trial court and now raised in this mandamus have
already been addressed.
Whitten and Rhodes were previously deposed in December 2016.
(MR3:221; MR 4:337) Numerous objections and claims of both attorney and work
product privilege were asserted during their deposition testimony as well as to the
corresponding subpoenas duces tecum. (MR 2:198; MR 3:310) Many of these
objections were withdrawn by a Rule 11 Agreement executed by the parties’
shortly before the December 2017 hearing. (MR 7:466) All other objections and
claims of privilege arising in connection with Relators’ depositions were ruled
13
upon by the Travis County District Court. (MR 9:502; Supp. MR 15) The effect
of these rulings narrowed the scope of Whitten and Rhodes testimony at trial on
those matters to which Relators’ and/or Defendants’ objections were sustained. As
argued below, these rulings also identified additional questions which would now
need to be answered where objections were either overruled or withdrawn.
Within their mandamus petition, Relators identify numerous deposition
questions posed by the Trustees counsel as examples of the examination they
predict will occur at trial. (See Petition, pp. 3-4) The Trustees point out that as to
Whitten’s deposition, all objections raised to the specific questions identified were
sustained except one which was overruled and one question was withdrawn by the
plaintiffs. (MR 9:502; MR 7:466) As to Rhodes, all objections raised to the
questions listed were sustained except one objection which Relators withdrew by
agreement. (Supp. MR 15; MR 7:466) As such, the Trustees counsel is precluded
from making a majority of those specific inquiries again at trial and as a result, the
Relators’ argument is moot, having been resolved before it was even lodged.
It should also be noted that Judge Duggan’s privilege rulings from
December 2014 remain in effect and exist to further protect Whitten and Rhodes
from being compelled to testify regarding documents which have been fully
protected and remain unavailable to the Trustees for their use at trial, narrowing
the scope of their examination even further. (MR 11:554)
14
In effect, the prior trial court rulings, particularly those protecting disclosure
of matters protected by the attorney client and work product privileges, already
exist and operate to limit or narrow the scope of Whitten and Rhodes testimony
before the jury, resolving the Relators’ concerns raised in the trial court and now
asserted on mandamus.
Citing, In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005),
this Court has held that “[a]n issue becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist
between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”
Stoufflet v. Stoufflet, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1899, at *24 (Tex. App. – Austin
March 20, 2009, no pet.). Further, the Texas Supreme Court has acknowledged
that mandamus should not issue "if for any reason it would be useless or
unavailing," citing Holcombe v. Fowler, 118 Tex. 42, 9 S.W.2d 1028, 1028 (Tex.
1928). Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995). In this case,
the Trustees contend that the prior trial court rulings already address the identified
issues and concerns which Relators now bring before this Court and nothing
remains to be addressed on those matters.
To the extent that there may be new questions propounded at trial which
may trigger new concerns regarding protected information, Whitten and Rhodes
clearly maintain the right to object at that time and Judge Duggan presiding over
the Bastrop County litigation will be available to rule. Because it would have been
15
impossible for Judge Phillips to pre-judge these issues before the Relators
examination was underway, he did not abuse his discretion in denying the
Relators’ application for protection. In re Hays County Crim. Dist. Attorney’s
Office & Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Servs., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS
8088 *7-8 (Tex. App. – Austin October 1, 2010, orig. proceeding).
C. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus under the circumstances presented
is clearly unfounded.
If the Relators issues are not moot, then the Trustees contend that mandamus
regarding the appearance of Whitten and Rhodes as witnesses at trial is
nevertheless unfounded under the circumstances.
Trial in the Bastrop County litigation will not commence until January 29,
2018. (Supp. MR 20) Whitten and Rhodes are not compelled to appear until
January 31, 2018. (MR 8:491, 494) Not a single question before the jury to be
impaneled has been asked and objections as authorized by the rules have not yet
been lodged or ruled upon. To the extent that any previously unaddressed
concerns regarding the admissibility of Relators’ testimony may arise during trial,
those can and will be addressed by the court at that time. It is fundamental that an
appellate court has no jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion on a controversy
that is not yet ripe. City of Garland v. Louton, 691 S.W.2d 603 (Tex. 1985);
Camarena v. Tex. Emp't Comm'n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988). Furthermore,
any perceived error affecting the jury’s verdict and ultimately the trial court’s
16
judgment which may be claimed as to rulings made during Relators live testimony
before the jury may be asserted on appeal, proscribing the right to mandamus relief
altogether when an adequate remedy by appeal is afforded. Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d at 839.
D. Mandamus relief will severely prejudice the Trustees right to prosecute their
claims and will foreclose a credibility determination by the jury.
In addition to the foregoing arguments, there are any number of reasons why
Whitten and Rhodes should appear at trial to testify, establishing that the Order
compelling them to do so was not a clear abuse of discretion.
1. The jury should be allowed to judge the witnesses’ credibility.
The Bastrop County litigation is set to be tried before a jury and in those
circumstances the jurors will be the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight to give their testimony. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802,
819 (Tex. 2005).
Although a party may use deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony at
trial, Tex. R. Civ. P. 206.6(b), this may not always be appropriate for strategic or
other reasons. Here, while Whitten and Rhodes were both deposed, those
depositions were only recorded by stenographic means and no video was taken.
(MR 3:221; MR 4:337) As such, reading their deposition testimony into evidence
would not afford the jury the opportunity to observe the witnesses demeanor or
consider the tone and inflection in their voices, experiences which are recognized
17
as vital to a trier of fact when determining credibility. Echols v. Olivarez, 85
S.W.3d 475, 477 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.).
2. Evidentiary rulings and the withdrawal of objections subsequent to the
Relators depositions leave questions unanswered.
Counsel for Whitten and Rhodes asserted numerous objections and
privileges during their deposition leaving many questions unanswered. (MR
3:221; MR 4:337) As already stated, subsequent trial court orders overruling some
of these objections now permit the Trustees to obtain those answers. (MR 9:502;
Supp. MR 15) Further, Relators actually withdrew some of their objections and/or
assertions of privilege to questions asked but not answered during their
depositions, leaving those to now be answered as well. (MR 7:466) Pursuant to
the effective Docket Control Order, discovery is now closed making the Relators
appearance at trial to provide their responses to all of these matters necessary.
(Supp. MR 15)
3. Discovery occurring after the Relators depositions generate new areas
of examination.
Whitten and Rhodes were deposed in December 2016. (MR 3:221; MR
4:337) Thereafter, discovery in the Bastrop County litigation was ongoing,
including depositions of the Defendants themselves, which has identified
additional inquiries to be made of Whitten and Rhodes. For example, subsequent
18
discovery revealed certain conflicting testimony between Whitten and Ives which
the Trustees are permitted to explore at trial.
Specifically, Whitten expressly testified during his deposition that he did not
represent Defendant Kenneth Ives during the 2012 adult adoption proceedings.
(MR 1:96, lines 8-11) In contrast, Ives testified that he considered Whitten to be
his counsel. (Supp. MR 21:173, lines 17-25) Resolution of this conflicting
testimony may bear on the application of the attorney client privilege as to
communications between or including these individuals and those may not be fully
revealed until trial.
4. By taking Relators’ depositions, the Trustees did not waive their right
to subpoena the Relators as witnesses for trial.
Clearly, depositions are a discovery tool designed to elicit and secure sworn
testimony for possible use at trial but nothing in the rules forces a party to choose
between the use of a deposition or live testimony. Propounding questions during a
deposition does not waive a party’s right to ask those same questions again at trial
if for strategic reasons counsel determines live testimony makes a more favorable
presentation. There may be significant differences between how a witness reacts to
a question during the more private setting of a deposition as opposed to what they
exhibit in a courtroom before a jury. Counsel may strategically choose to take a
basic, investigative deposition, while reserving questions on certain issues for
examination during trial.
19
The Supreme Court has noted, the proper presentation of a client's case
demands that an attorney be able to plan his or her strategy without undue and
needless interference. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Valdez, 863 S.W.2d 458, 461
(Tex. 1993). Granting Relators motion for protection from general trial subpoenas
would needlessly interfere with the Trustees presentation of their case and was not
warranted here.
In this case, there is absolutely no basis for interfering with the Trustees’
right to call Whitten and Rhodes as live witnesses at trial and examine them fully
within the parameters of the trial court’s existing rulings on protected information
and/or the applicable rules of evidence.
5. Relators’ suggestion that this Court’s prior mandamus decision
excuses their testimony at trial is misplaced.
Relators argue that this Court’s prior decision in In re Levien, 2015 Tex.
App. LEXIS 4391 (Tex. App. – Austin April 30, 2015) (orig. proceeding),
somehow excuses their testimony at trial. Relators cite to the language in that
Opinion which suggested that the “only relevant considerations [related to an adult
adoption] seem to be whether the petitioner resides in this State, whether the
petition was filed in an appropriate district court of statutory county court, whether
the petitioner’s spouse joined the petition, whether the adult to be adopted
consented in writing, and whether the petition and the adult to be adopted were
present at the hearing.” Id. at *13. (See Petition, p. 12) Relators assert that any
20
testimony they have to offer would be unrelated to these issues and/or that other
evidence, including testimony from the Defendants themselves, could supply all of
this information.
In the Bastrop County litigation, the Trustees have directly attacked the trial
court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Stephen’s 2012 adoption of Ives, asserting
that Stephen was not a Texas resident at the time of those proceedings and
therefore the adoption order is void. (Supp. MR 22) This disputed issue will be
resolved at trial by the jury.
As the attorneys responsible for preparation of the adult adoption pleadings
which represented Stephen’s Texas residency to the trial court in 2012, Whitten
and Rhodes testimony regarding the extent of their knowledge and/or investigation
of the facts relevant to this issue is directly relevant to the jurisdiction issue as well
as to claims involving fraud upon the trial court in pursuit of the adult adoptions.
The Trustees did not fully explore this topic with Relators during their depositions
because they planned to do so at trial and there is no reason why they should be
denied this opportunity. As such, this Court’s 2015 mandamus decision actually
encourages Whitten and Rhodes appearance as witnesses at trial in order to
promote a full examination of the relevant facts necessary to resolve the disputed
jurisdictional issue presented in this case.
21
6. In summary, mandamus is not warranted.
All of foregoing arguments demonstrate that excusing Whitten and Rhodes
from testifying at trial would severely prejudice the Trustees ability to present all
relevant evidence for the jury’s consideration. Existing and enforceable pre-trial
orders protect their concerns regarding disclosure of privileged and protected
information and Judge Duggan remains in place to address any further issues
which may arise at trial. Overall, Relators have not established how the benefits of
mandamus as addressing their concerns will outweigh the prejudice caused by
forestalling the Trustees’ right to examine them as witnesses during trial.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Based on the arguments asserted herein, Real Parties’ In Interest,
KENNETH LEVIEN, BARRY LEVIEN & PHILLIP LEVIEN, Trustees, request
this Court to deny mandamus relief. Real Parties’ in Interest request such other
relief to which they may show themselves entitled.
22
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sallee S. Smyth /s/ Ellen A. Yarrell
SALLEE S. SMYTH ELLEN A. YARRELL
Attorney at Law Ellen A. Yarrell, P.C.
SBT# 18779400 SBT# 22138500
800 Jackson Street 2900 Weslayan, Suite 350
Richmond, Texas 77469 Houston, Texas 77027
(281) 238-6200 (713) 621-3332
(281) 238-6202 (Fax) (713) 621-3669 (Fax)
smyth.sallee@gmail.com ellen@eayatty.com
Attorneys for Real Parties’ In Interest
Trustees on Behalf of the Trust Established under
Article Seventh of the Last Will and Testament of Arnold Levien
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. Rule 52.3(j), I certify that I have reviewed this
Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus and concluded that every factual
statement in the response is supported by competent evidence included in the
mandamus record and any supplements thereto.
/s/ Sallee S. Smyth
SALLEE S. SMYTH
Attorney for Real Parties’ in Interest
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true copy of the above Response to Petition for Writ of
Mandamus was served on the following counsel of record in accordance with the
Texas Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure on this the 4th day of January,
2018:
Kevin J. Terrazas
VIA EMAIL at kterrazas@clevelandterrazas.com
Attorney for Relators
John Kinchen
VIA EMAIL at jkinchen@hakllp.com
Attorney for Real Parties in Interest, the Defendants
Luis A. Fabrega
VIA EMAIL at lfabrega@fabregahood.com
Attorney for Real Parties in Interest, the Defendants
Judge David Phillips, Respondent
Travis County District Judges Office
VIA EMAIL at Lorraine.elzia@traviscountytx.gov
Judge Christopher D. Duggan
423RD District Court
804 Pecan Street
Bastrop, Texas 78602
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS DELIVERY
/s/ Sallee S. Smyth
SALLEE S. SMYTH
24
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. Rule 9.4(i)(3), I certify that there are 4,999
words within this document exclusive of those contained in the caption, table of
contents, index of authorities, issues presented, statement of the case, signatures,
certificate of competent evidence, proof of service, and certificate of compliance,
as tabulated by the computer program used in conjunction with the preparation of
this document.
/s/ Sallee S. Smyth
SALLEE S. SMYTH
25