Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hyundai Motor America v. O'NEILL

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided August 13, 1992No. 05-92-01032-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKaplan, Justice

This mandamus proceeding presents important issues concerning the steps necessary to preserve a claim of privilege during discovery. I write separately to address these issues.

NECESSITY OF AN APPROPRIATE REQUEST

This discovery dispute centers on the interpretation of Request No. 17 to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production. As originally written, Corina McDonald asked Hyundai to produce:

Each document containing any compilation, report, summary, analysis, index or digest of warranty claims, problems, or complaints pertaining, directly or indirectly, to the seat belt system on the model of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Loftin v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Weisel Enterprises, Inc. v. CurryTexas Supreme Court · 1986
  3. McKinney v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of PittsburghTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Gutierrez v. Dallas Independent School DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Town East Ford Sales, Inc. v. Gray, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1987

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API