Expert Designation – Reversed and Remanded

  • Oyoque v. Henning
    • 09-17-00018-CV, 2018 WL 1527892
    • 284th District Court of Montgomery County
    • Justice Kreger, Mar. 29, 2018
  • Henning sued Oyoque to enforce the restrictive covenants contained in the deed restrictions for the Lake Chateau Woods subdivision The jury found in favor of Henning. On appeal, Oyoque challenged the trial’s court’s striking of his experts, among other things.
  • The Ninth Court noted that (1) Henning never sent a request for disclosure to Oyoque, (2) the trial court’s discovery control order did not provide for the designation of expert witnesses, and (3) thus, Rule 195 governed the parties’ disclosure of experts, the comments of which state that “[d]isclosure is designed to afford parties basic discovery of specific categories of information, not automatically in every case, but upon request.”
  • The Ninth Court found that Oyoque, under Rule 195.2, was not required to “furnish information requested,” because no such information had been requested. As a result, he had no affirmative duty to designate experts, and the Ninth Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case.