In re Ford Motor Co.

Texas Supreme Court

In re Ford Motor Co.

124 S.W.3d 147, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1106, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 245, 2003 WL 22020465

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 22, 2003

DocketNo. 03-0705

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 124 S.W.3d 147 (In re Ford Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Ford Motor Co., 124 S.W.3d 147, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1106, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 245, 2003 WL 22020465 (Tex. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ford Motor Company, defendant in the underlying products liability action, seeks mandamus relief from a trial court order requiring Ford to produce certain databases for examination by the plaintiffs’ counsel and experts. The order does not provide specific search procedures for the production but states that, failing agreement of the parties, the trial court will issue an order detailing the search methodology. The petition, response, and reply reflect that the parties have not agreed to, and the trial court has not issued, an order prescribing a search methodology. As we read the trial court’s order, Ford’s petition is premature. Accordingly, we deny Ford’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Justice ENOCH did not participate in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Ford Motor Company, defendant in the underlying products liability action, seeks mandamus relief from a trial court order requiring Ford to produce certain databases for examination by the plaintiffs’ counsel and experts. The order does not provide specific search procedures for the production but states that, failing agreement of the parties, the trial court will issue an order detailing the search methodology. The petition, response, and reply reflect that the parties have not agreed to, and the trial court has not issued, an order prescribing a search methodology. As we read the trial court’s order, Ford’s petition is premature. Accordingly, we deny Ford’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Justice ENOCH did not participate in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.W.3d 147, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1106, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 245, 2003 WL 22020465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ford-motor-co-tex-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack