Article Review: ExxonMobil Olefin Explosion

-

 


In July 2019 an explosion occurred in an ExxonMobil olefin plant that injured more than 60 contracted workers, and over the last couple of years nearly 60 lawsuits have been filed against ExxonMobil in hopes of recovering damages for the injured parties. Jim Sams, Texas Supreme Court Rules ExxonMobil Entitled to Info About Medical Payments, 2021, https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southcentral/2021/11/23/307216.htm (last visited December 3, 2021). However, when ExxonMobil attempted to motion for discovery into the medical costs of the injured parties, the Houston District Court and the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston denied the motion. Id. According to Claims Journal, both courts denied the motion on the basis that the discovery request placed an undue and excessive burden on the medical providers. Id. Even after the requests were narrowed and made more specific, the courts never granted the discovery. Id. This was the situation until ExxonMobil appealed to the Texas Supreme Court where the decisions of the lower courts were overturned. Id. The Supreme court granted the motion for discovery due to the fact that ExxonMobil narrowed their requests right after the 14th District Court of Appeals ruled it to be “overbroad”. Id.

The main issue discussed and brought to light in this article revolves around the concept of discovery motions and the protection of documents. Discovery is an essential aspect of the litigation process, because it allows both parties acquire the relevant facts and documents needed in order to build a solid argument. Peggy Kerley, Joanne Banker Hames & Paul Sukys, Civil Litigation 7-4a (8th ed. 2020). If a party refuses to cooperate during the discovery process, the opposing party can file a motion to compel, and if the motion is granted, the court will order the opposing party to comply or suffer sanctions. Id. On the other hand, a court can deny a discovery motion on the basis that it is “overbroad, burdensome, or irrelevant.” Id. at 12-3. In the ExxonMobil case, the lower courts ruled that the discovery requests were unjust since they were, or appeared at the time to be, overly burdensome to the medical providers. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision and allowed the discovery to proceed. “The [Texas Supreme Court] opinion says the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant ExxonMobil’s request to enforce its more carefully tailored request for documents.” Jim Sams, supra. Therefore, this case is an excellent example of why the discovery process is so important and why it is important to understand what constitutes the protection of documents during discovery.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scenario: Minnesota Law (w/ Case Briefs, Statute Explanation, and Table of Authorities)

-
Image
Scenario The managing partner at your Minnesota law firm wants you to research and provide information concerning a minor’s lack of capacity to enter into a binding contract. She wants you to locate the following three Minnesota cases, as well as a fourth Minnesota case on the matter. 1. Ramsey Cnty. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 853 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). 2. Winter v. Skoglund, 404 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1987). 3. O'Brien Ent. Agcy. v. Wolfgramm, 407 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). She also wants you to locate the following two statutes and explain what a defendant is required to demonstrate concerning a minor’s lack of capacity. 1. MINN. STAT. ANN. § 645.45 (West 2016). 2. MINN. STAT. ANN. § 524.2-501 (West 2016). After you have located those four cases and two statutes, please provide one case brief for each case, for a total of four case briefs. Also, please provide an explanation for each statute. Minnesota Case Briefs and Statute Breakdown Citation: Ramsey Cnty. v. Guardi...
Read more

Client Letter: King v. Sunny Days Resort

-
Image
  The Law Offices of Patrick, Swayze, and Zimmerman 751 Main Street Friendly, New Washington 00065 (200) 444-7778 • FAX 444-7678 • www.patricklaw.com October 15, 2021 Ms. Esther King 139 Main Street Friendly, NW 00065 Re: King v. Sunny Days Resort Dear Ms. King: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the status of your case and summarize the law with regard to the facts of your case. Our law office has decided to take your case since we believe that a bailment was created when your sunglasses were left at the front desk of the Sunny Days Resort. In order to determine whether or not a bailment was created, there are two elements that the court will apply to the facts of your case - possession and an intent to physically control your sunglasses were present at the time. Possession occurs when one has physical control over another’s property and an intent to exercise that control. In Morris v. Hamilton , possession occurred when Morris decided to physically tak...
Read more

Attorney vs. Paralegal: Rules of Ethics & Professional Obligations

-
Image
Ethics for the Attorney and Paralegal The ethical foundation set in place for both attorneys and paralegals is an ever increasing matter of importance. Direct state regulation and regulation by state bar associations, like the ABA, continue to issue guidelines. Though their regulations and ethical obligations are very similar, the paralegal and the attorney vary slightly. For instance, paralegals are not directly regulated by the state, with the exception for California where it is required to meet specific educational requirements to be a practicing paralegal. The ethical codes and regulations that are set in place for attorneys indirectly affect the paralegal. For the most part, all states ethical codes are based directly off of the revised ABA canons: The Model Code for Professional Responsibility and the Model Rules for Professional Conduct . Lastly, even though paralegals are not being directly regulated does not mean that a violation of a rule governing attorneys will not have ne...
Read more