Diamond Hydraulics, Inc. v. GAC Equipment, LLC d/b/a Austin Crane Service

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Diamond Hydraulics’s substitute expert under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6. The court concluded that Diamond established good cause because its designated expert became unavailable shortly before trial, Diamond made good-faith efforts to secure his testimony or obtain a substitute, and expert testimony was central to the causation issue. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Diamond established good cause for its untimely designation because its designated expert's unavailability was outside Diamond's control, Diamond made good-faith efforts to secure his testimony or find a substitute, and the expert's testimony on highly technical causation was central to the case.
2. The district court acted arbitrarily by allowing Austin Crane's late rebuttal-expert designation while denying Diamond comparable relief and a meaningful opportunity to address the substitute expert.
3. The court did not need to consider whether Austin Crane would have been unfairly surprised or prejudiced because Rule 193.6(a) provides independent, disjunctive exceptions and good cause was established.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6 by refusing to find good cause for Diamond's late designation of a replacement expert after its designated expert became unavailable.
2. Whether the district court acted arbitrarily and unreasonably by allowing Austin Crane's untimely rebuttal-expert designation while denying Diamond's request for a replacement expert and related continuance.
3. Whether the Supreme Court needed to decide whether Diamond's late designation would unfairly surprise or prejudice Austin Crane under Rule 193.6(a)(2).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded