Corporate discovery in a Texas truck case should answer three questions: Who made or carried out the safety decision? What did that person know at the time? What did the company’s process call for next? Policies, training records, dispatch data, alert histories, audits and vendor files can help answer those questions. Without a link to a duty, a decision or causation, though, a mountain of records adds volume without clarity.
The logo is only one clue
Record the name displayed on the truck, then verify the relationships behind it. The tractor owner, driver’s employer and dispatcher may be different entities. Equipment records may identify another company that supplies the camera or electronic logging device. Contracts and trip documents help establish those roles. Before directing a request to a company, find out whether it possesses the records or whether a vendor keeps them.
For a fatigue allegation, compare the trip assignment with the driver’s recorded hours. For a mechanical allegation, follow the defect through inspection, reporting and repair. If the system generated a safety alert, identify its recipient and look for a response. The vendor may retain information that was never included in the carrier’s download. These are separate lines of inquiry; the evidence may support some and rule out others.
Make the scope clear to the records holder
Write the request so its recipient can find the trip. Supply the truck and driver identifiers, dates and relevant system. An export may also need a field explanation, its creation date and available edit history before it can be understood. For a training dispute, name the instruction at issue. A manual about a different operation may have little to add. These details help the records holder understand what is sought and help counsel explain why it matters.
Start with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3 when deciding what falls within discovery. Rule 192.4 then requires attention to unnecessary duplication, a more convenient or less burdensome source, and whether the expense outweighs the likely benefit. Be ready to explain the period and source selected. Confidential material may call for a protective order or handling agreement. Address that separately: agreeing to protect confidentiality does not make an otherwise improper request appropriate.
Use a corporate representative deposition well
Rule 199.2(b)(1) requires an organization’s deposition notice or subpoena to state the topics with reasonable particularity. The organization names one or more designees to testify about information known or reasonably available to it. The witness may need to review records or speak with employees; the testimony is not confined to what that individual remembered before preparing. Draft the topics so the organization can tell what it must investigate.
Try reading the notice as the company receiving it. “How did you monitor this driver’s hours on the trip?” gives the designee a place to start. “All safety practices” could mean almost anything. You might instead identify one alert or the defect reports for the tractor involved. A designee can point you to another employee or vendor, but one witness cannot be assumed to know every system in detail.
Ask the designee to identify the records reviewed, people consulted and information unavailable during preparation. Use the trip chronology to connect that preparation to the company’s account. For example, a hypothetical log entry at 2:40 a.m. may prompt questions about the alert’s recipient and any documented response. Establish whether the answer comes from the entry, a conversation or another source. This distinction helps expose an assumption that further testimony or records must resolve. Related preparation issues appear in the TBLS Personal Injury Knowledge Hub.
Compare the account and the record
Put the dispatch messages beside the schedule and look for changes to the plan. If an alert appears, check what follows it and ask about any gap. A repair inquiry should connect the inspection and defect report with the work order. For a training entry, establish which driver received which instruction. An empty field may warrant a question, but it does not answer that question. Find out why no entry was made before drawing a conclusion about the event.
Do not treat a policy violation, missing audit or low safety score as the answer to a liability question. Each needs context and a connection to the claim. A company’s policy may help show what it knew or how it described its own process. It does not, without more, create a legal duty or prove that a violation caused the injury. For damages and the broader claim, see the Texas injury claim value and litigation hub.
Before sending anything, check these points
- Who handled the safety function, and who keeps the records?
- Which system and time period are tied to the question?
- Does the request connect to an issue in the pleadings?
- Could someone who did not build the platform interpret the export?
- Are the deposition topics precise enough for the organization to prepare?
- Have you accounted for burden and any confidentiality concern?
- What records or witnesses could confirm the company’s explanation?
Questions that often come up
Does the witness speak only from personal memory? No. The organization designates a witness for the noticed topics and prepares that person on information reasonably available to the company. The topics still must be stated with reasonable particularity.
Can you ask for every policy or audit? You can ask, but the court may limit an overbroad request. Start with the disputed safety issue, system and time period.
Does a company policy decide negligence? No. It may be relevant, but it does not by itself establish a legal duty or prove causation.
Related reading
For the broader truck case, read the Texas Truck Accident Litigation Hub and advanced litigation guide. The profile of Aaron A. Herbert provides his Board Certification details.
Connect corporate records to the larger truck case
The Texas Truck Accident Litigation Knowledge Hub follows these issues through a truck case, from preserving records to preparing for trial.
Founding Attorney
Aaron A. Herbert is a Texas attorney, Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
For over a decade he has shown an unwavering commitment to clients who were seriously injured by major accidents and industrial catastrophes. During that time he has earned the reputation as one of America’s most aggressive trial lawyers by achieving noteworthy recoveries from judges and juries, as well as substantial settlements prior to trial, the majority of which contained negotiated confidentiality agreements at the request of the defense. When asked about these cases, Mr. Herbert has said that each case not only justified the recovery level, but that no one would trade places with any one of these victims in return for any amount of money, once they know the facts and severity of the injuries and tragedy involved. According to Mr. Herbert, “there can be no substitute for passion, preparation and persistence in the practice of law.” He is known not only for this tenacious preparation, but also for his imagination in the courtroom. He is passionate and persistent in seeking to obtain the maximum case value for each individual client at trial or through settlement, while reducing the stress of litigation on his clients.
Born and raised in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Herbert enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school and later received an Honorable Discharge. After the Marines, he obtained a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Texas A&M University, then a Juris Doctorate from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. There he graduated in the top of his class and became an eternal Sooners Football fan. Aaron has worked as a zealous advocate for injured clients at several boutique personal injury litigation firms where he amassed numerous jury verdicts. After spending a year as the top earning litigation attorney at a firm that frequently tops verdict search as one with the highest number of trial wins in Texas, Aaron accepted a position as the managing pre-litigation attorney at another Dallas personal injury firm. Over the next seven years he transitioned to the managing litigation attorney, and that firm grew to one of the largest personal injury firms in Dallas. In 2010 he formed the Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, to get back to a focus on developing each individual case and maximizing case value for each client.
Mr. Herbert practices law with the belief that a well taken care of, highly engaged and motivated team of employees working in a cooperative team environment will result in superior representation and great results for the firm clients. He believes in always setting a goal of achieving the best possible results for each and every client.
Education
- Texas A&M University (B.S. Criminal Justice, 1999)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (J.D., 2002)
Professional Associations
- Licensed to practice in Texas (2002)
- Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization (2008)
Publications
- Litigating Dog Bite Cases, Texas Dog Law Seminar, Dallas 2009
Member
- State Bar of Texas
- American Bar Association
- American Trial Lawyer Association
- Texas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas County Bar Association
- Tarrant County Bar Association
- Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Texas Bar #24036761 · The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C. · Dallas, Texas
General information, not legal advice for a particular case. Past experience and credentials do not guarantee an outcome.