Professional Documents
Culture Documents
05-09-00484-CV
______________________________________________________________________________
I. Summary of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
A. History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
C. Materiality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
-i-
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES:
Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-12
Halperin v. Kissinger,
401 F. Supp. 272 (D.D.C. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Jones v. Clinton,
869 F. Supp 690 (E.D. Ark. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Jones v. Hirschfeld,
219 F.R.D. 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11
Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 731 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TEXAS CASES
In re Autonation, Inc.,
228 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bright v. Addison,
171 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2005, pet. den’d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..18
-ii-
Casso v. Brand,
776 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Ginther v. Taub,
675 S.W.2d 724 (Tex. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Kirby v. Cruse,
688 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1985, writ ref’d, n.r.e.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
In re Kuntz,
124 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9, 23
Pulley v. Milberger,
198 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2006, pet. den.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Reynolds v. Nagely,
262 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2008, pet. den.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
In re S.C.V.,
750 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
- iii -
Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9, 23
CODES:
-iv-
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Real Party in Interest Gary M. Vodicka (“Vodicka”), files this his Response to Petition
for Writ of Mandamus and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
Vodicka is satisfied with Relators’ Statement of the Case except that the following
was omitted:
On January 30, 2006, Peruna Properties, Inc. (“Peruna”) filed a counterclaim against
Vodicka asserting a trespass to try title claim based on a Special Warranty Deed alleged to
Association”), as attorney in fact for the owners, on December 7, 2005 (the “SWD”).1
Vodicka filed his statutory “not guilty” plea and has asserted defenses, including a claim that
any legal title Peruna might have under the SWD is subject to a constructive trust in his favor
STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
1
SA Tab 1 at 4 .
2
SA Tab 2 at 1-2; SA Tab 5 at 38-39.
3
Vodicka will use the same record designations Relators used. The Supplemental Appendix will be
referred to as “SA”.
-1-
The Underlying Lawsuit.
Vodicka’s Suit Against Peruna Was Filed Prior to the Special Warranty Deed. On
June 27, 2005, at a special meeting of the homeowners, Peruna was the only owner who
voted in favor of Peruna’s resolution that the University Gardens Condominiums (“UGC”)
units were obsolete and should be sold.4 Vodicka sued the Defendants in August, 2005, four
months prior to the execution of the SWD under which Peruna claims legal title to the entire
UGC property, including legal title to Vodicka’s homestead and his three other units and the
joint, undivided interest in the general common elements associated with unit ownership.5
Vodicka asserted that Peruna had not properly triggered the provisions of the UGC
Condominium Declaration that authorized the Association to sell the UGC property as the
attorney in fact for the owners and he has added a declaratory judgment claim to that effect.6
Vodicka’s Defensive Issues to Peruna’s Trespass To Try Title Claim. After Peruna
purportedly took title pendente lite, Peruna filed its trespass to try title counterclaim against
Vodicka.7 Vodicka answered with the statutory “not guilty” and has asserted that he has
superior title to Peruna’s claim of legal title under the SWD due to the UGA’s breach of
fiduciary duty owed to Vodicka in regard to the sale.8 This defensive claim is expressly
predicated on the Texas Supreme Court’s approval of the use of a constructive trust based
4
Homeowner Mark Stradley raised the objection at the special meeting that the vote being that of only one
owner was inadequate to trigger the forced sale provisions. SA Tab 3 at 7 "App. 17".
5
SA Tab 4 at 1.
6
MRA Tab-4 pp. 44-51. This claim by Vodicka is presently unadjudicated.
7
SA Tab 1 at 4.
8
SA Tab 5 at pp.38-39.
-2-
on a breach of fiduciary duty as a method of defeating a trespass to try title claim of a person
holding legal title in Ginther v. Taub 9 . Vodicka’s defensive issues also included a claim for
recission based upon the breach of fiduciary duties.10 Peruna’s trespass to try title claim is
unadjudicated.
Vodicka has also asserted affirmative claims for damages, recission of the SWD and a
constructive trust on any legal title Peruna has under the SWD based upon the breaches of
fiduciary duties.11
Peruna did not acquire the UGC property.12 Neither Vodicka’s declaratory judgment
claim to declare that the June 27, 2005 vote was inadequate to trigger the authority to execute
a deed as attorney in fact for the owners of the units of UGC nor Peruna’s trespass to try title
claim asserting the SWD as legal title superior to any title in Vodicka (with Vodicka’s
affirmative defenses thereto) have been adjudicated. Therefore, neither Peruna nor SMU
Relators’ Motion for Protection. Relators’ Motion for Protection sought protection
9
Ginther v. Taub, 675 S.W .2d 724, 727 (Tex. 1984)(constructive trust available to provide superior title to
property acquired by a knowing or unknowing beneficiary of fraud, in that case breach of fiduciary duty)
10
SA Tab 5 at pp.38-39.
11
MRA. Tab-4. pp.44-51.
12
Throughout Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus statements are made to the effect that Vodicka was
formerly an owner of University Gardens Condominium units. Since Peruna’s specified source of title is the SW D
which was executed pendente lite and Peruna’s trespass to try title claim is yet unadjudicated, Relators are misstating
the facts.
-3-
under Tex. R. Civ. Pro. 192.6(b) and (b(1) and specified that the basis was that “Here,
possesses any information that appears reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” 13 In the Motion for Protective Order Relators state “Despite
uncontradicted evidence of President Bush’s lack of knowledge of the facts material to this
Vodicka’s Reply to Relators’ Motion for Protection. Vodicka’s Reply pointed out that
Relators bore the burden of proving both Vodicka’s motive (publicity) and President Bush’s
hearing.16 He was not asked what his motive was in seeking to depose President Bush.
Ad Hominem Attacks Against Respondent. Relators assert as a fact that “at the
beginning of the April 17 hearing and before hearing Relators’ evidence and argument,
Respondent stated on the record that he had already prepared a draft of the order on the
motion to compel.” Relators cite RR3 at 52:15-23 and 64:8-22. However, immediately
prior to this cite beginning on page 52, starting on page 51 at line 10 of the transcript of the
THE COURT: Okay. I’ll take judicial notice of that affidavit. All right.
Anything else from the Bush Foundation?
MR. MARTIN: No, Your Honor.
13
MRA Tab 7 at 10-11.
14
MRA Tab 7 at 2, ¶ I.
15
MRA Tab 8 at 9.
16
RR1-3, inclusive.
-4-
MR. LANIER: No, Judge.
MS. Blue: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Final argument.
Relators misinform the Court when they assert Respondent announced that he had
prepared a draft order before hearing all the evidence.17 And, even the portion of the record
Relators do cite includes Respondent’s statements made after the close of evidence:
THE COURT: We’ve been going on for awhile. Let me kind of tell you what
my timeline is on this. I want to hear obviously Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Lanier’s
and Ms. Blue’s argument concerning President Bush. What I’d like to do--I’ve
drafted an order. I haven’t made a final decision obviously, but assuming that
there’s some additional information I want to add to the order. I know you
guys have been waiting a long time to get an opinion out of the Court. And we
tried to get an agreement on this, it didn’t work out, and so I’m going to make
a ruling today. I need to do some tweaking to it.(RR3 at 8-18)
Relators assert that the Real Parties in Interest did not identify the evidence points that
were identified in Respondent’s Order, rather Respondent identified them during the parties’
closing arguments. However, in closing arguments the Real Parties in Interest argued in
support of the deposition, “Your Honor, knowledge is relevant. What SMU knew; what
Peruna knew, is relevant to whether or not they were breaching their fiduciary duties.” 18
They argued that the substance of the conversations with President Bush was relevant to
know what SMU/Peruna knew from these conversations that might have affected the
Defendants’ decision making process.19 They argued that they were not limited to Turner,
Miers and Hunt’s recollection (or lack thereof) “as to what was said” at the meetings with
17
In fact, the Court noted when it became Relators’ turn to submit evidence, to which Relators’ counsel
replied “Our evidentiary case will be very brief, Your Honor.” (RR3 at p. 47:4-7)
18
RR3 at p.62:18-20.
19
RR3 at 63:20-24.
-5-
the President.20 They argued that they were not limited to discovery of only one side of
conversations that might have an effect on the Defendants’ decision making process.21
look at what causes of action were pleaded by Vodicka and analyze what information the
President might have in relation to the elements of those causes of action.22 Respondent
noted:
THE COURT: SMU’s defense seems to be that the reason that they were
purchasing these units was for residential housing. They may eventually use
it for the Bush Library, but at the time they were purchasing them they were
going to use them for residential housing, is that correct? 23
Real Parties in Interest argued that to know when (and if ) President Bush had informed SMU
that it would get the Library at some point prior to the SWD they needed to ask President
THE COURT: And that’s what I trying to figure out. I think that is critical
information in this case. I’m trying to figure out has that been--does anybody
know when he made that decision? 25
In response, Real Parties in Interest even identified other evidence that made it reasonable
to assume that the President may have made and relayed that decision to SMU at a time much
20
RR3 at p. 55:21-23.
21
RR3 at 61:18-25;62:1-3.
22
RR3 at 71:2-8.
23
RR3 at 78:21-25;79:1.
24
RR3 at 76:13-25;77:1.
25
RR3 at 77:2-5.
-6-
prior to the SWD.26
deposition of President Bush was appropriate under a federal test, the general Texas rules of
procedure and the apex deposition doctrine.27 Respondent found that the deposition would
be proper under all three. Respondent’s Order also finds that certain limitations on President
Bush’s deposition are proper. These limitations were time limits, site selection to be made
by President Bush within Dallas county and direct court supervision of the deposition if
I. Summary of Argument.
Respondent did not abuse his discretion by ordering President Bush’s deposition under
the Poindexter II standard. The Presidential deposition in this case that Respondent ordered
after applying the Poindexter II standard is legally indistinguishable from the Presidential
deposition ordered by the federal district court in Branscum where that court applied the
Poindexter II standard.
Respondent did not abuse his discretion in ordering President Bush’s deposition using
the apex deposition doctrine’s two tests as a (analogous) standard. Without an affidavit of
President Bush stating under oath the denial of any relevant knowledge as President Bush
pleaded in his Motion for Protection, Respondent could not follow the Supreme Court’s
26
RR3 at 77:2-22.
27
MRA Tab 2 at 6-12.
28
MRA Tab 2 at 11.
-7-
pronouncements on what is required to initiate the apex deposition guidelines and properly
Respondent did not abuse his discretion in ordering President Bush’s deposition with
the limitations he imposed under the general Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governing oral
depositions since the prior discovery established that President Bush had been a party to
several conversations with SMU emissaries concerning his library and the Defendants’
defense in denial and some of Vodicka’s claims and affirmative defenses turn in some part
Relators have cited a total of six Texas cases for their various propositions that
mandamus lies in the situation presented. All of the cited cases, other than Walker v.
Packer,29 address mandamus in a fact situation where the person to be deposed was a
corporate officer and the legal issue was the apex deposition doctrine. In Walker, the
Supreme Court stressed that mandamus was not available in the discovery context absent a
showing of the inadequacy of the legal remedy. Walker sets forth in detail the examples of
discovery rulings where the legal remedy would be inadequate. Not one of those examples
relevance/materiality,30 without any assertion or proof that the discovery “clearly constitutes
29
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W .2d 833 (Tex. 1992)
30
Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus informs: “The fundamental error in Respondent’s Order is that
there is no attempt to analyze how the August 2002 meeting or any other Presidential conversation with SM U
representative relates to an essential element of any cause of action or defense asserted. Nothing said or done at the
August 2002 meeting is remotely relevant to any elements of Plaintiffs’ claims or any defense asserted.” Petition for
W rit of Mandamus p. 16.
-8-
harassment or imposes a burden far out of proportion to any benefit that may obtain to the
requesting party.”
Moreover, Relators acknowledge in their Petition that “President Bush is not a high-
level corporate official.31 ” Relators’ Petition acknowledges that the apex doctrine is only
“analogous” and admits that they only argued to Respondent “that the Texas approach with
respect to high-ranking officials was consistent with the federal rule developed for sitting and
former Presidents.” 32
With respect to the resolution of fact issues or matters committed to the court’s
discretion, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in a
mandamus. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992)(orig. proceeding). A
proceeding and should not be set aside unless it is clear from the record that only one
decision could have been reached. In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Tex. 2003)(orig.
proceeding). Even if the reviewing court would have decided the issue differently, it cannot
disturb the trial court’s decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Walker,
Abuse of discretion is present when a discovery order conflicts with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure. In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d at 181. Abuse of discretion can occur in the
31
Petition for W rit of Mandamus p. 10.
32
Petition for W rit of Mandamus p. 10-11, 27.
-9-
exercise of the great latitude a trial court has in controlling discovery when it acts
unreasonably and arbitrarily. In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Tex.
1998)(orig. proceeding).
Supreme Court has noted “[s]itting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide
testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the
Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought of as a novelty.” 33 Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 704 (1997)(listing United States v. Branscum, No. LR-CR-96-49 (ED. Ark.
June 7, 1996 as an example of depositions of a President). Relators are incorrect when they
inform this Court that “only in rare circumstances have sitting or former Presidents been
compelled to testify.”
Relators are also incorrect when they represent to this Court that “[a]ll told, a sitting
or former President has testified in a federal civil case only three times in American history.”
There have been depositions of sitting and former Presidents taken in four civil cases. Nixon
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 734 n. 5 (1982)(former President Nixon deposed); Nixon v.
Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 484 n. 48 (1977)(former President Nixon
deposed)34 ; Halperin v. Kissinger, 401 F. Supp. 272 (D.D.C. 1975)(former President Nixon
33
MRA Tab 2 at 6.
34
Relators failed to cite this case in their Petition.
-10-
deposed); Jones v. Clinton, 869 F. Supp 690 (E.D. Ark. 1994)(then President Clinton
deposed).
In Hirschfeld, the trial court found the deposition of President Clinton to be an undue
burden where President Clinton had submitted an affidavit about his lack of knowledge and
the trial court held that Hirschfeld did not allege any personal communications between Jones
and President Clinton regarding the two relevant subjects. Jones v. Hirschfeld, 219 F.R.D.
71, 76-78 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Relators failed to explain the circumstances in Hirschfled in
their Petition.
In Branscum, the trial court, applying the Poindexter II test, allowed Branscum to
depose sitting President Clinton with regard to Branscum’s appointment to the Arkansas
Highway Commission and allowed Hill to depose President Clinton with regard to Hill’s re-
appointment to the Bank Board in 1991 in a criminal case. United States v. Branscum, No.
LR-CR-96-49, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22813 (W.D. Ark. June 7, 1996). There is no mention
in Branscum whether President Clinton tendered an affidavit. Relators failed to cite this case
in their Petition.
B. The “Federal Standard.” Relators assert that there is a specific and defined
“federal standard” for depositions of sitting and former Presidents who do not assert a
privilege, but cite only federal district court authority, starting with Poindexter II, for this
“standard.” Therefore, the Petition provides no indication that the United States Supreme
Presidents for use in civil cases. Of note in Clinton v. Jones, the United States Supreme
-11-
Court mentioned that discovery had not been abated in the civil case against President
Clinton, “assume[d] that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial
may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule” and
directed that the district court not delay the matter for trial. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681,
Relators argue that “out of comity”Texas should conform its rules of procedure for
deposing a non-party fact witnesses to match the federal case law gloss to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure when the fact witness is a non-sitting President. The Texas Supreme
Court has noted situations where the federal and state rules of procedure diverge and has
declined to amend the Texas Rules of Procedure to mirror those of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 556-57 (Tex. 1989). Relators cite only In re
Weekley Homes 35 as their “comity” authority, but Weekley Homes does not mention comity
concerning rules of procedure and expressly held that in making the determination of the
nonparty it applies Texas procedural rules. So, Weekley Homes, is controlling precedent that
even when federal substantive law issues are determined in Texas courts the determinations
The Texas Supreme Court discusses “comity” in relation to laws and judicial
decisions. In re Autonation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 663, 670 (Tex. 2007). However, Vodicka’s
research on “comity” and rules of procedure has not turned up any Texas case that applies
35
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W .3d 127 (Tex. 2005)
-12-
comity principles to cases interpreting federal procedure to “conform” Texas procedure to
federal procedure. One recent Texas Supreme Court case re-affirmed that in litigation in
Texas courts of a federal Jones Act claim, both the United States Supreme Court and the
Texas Supreme Court view the issue as a reverse-Erie situation were federal substantive law
applies in Texas state court, but Texas procedural laws apply. In re Global Sante Fe Corp.,
It is Vodicka’s position below and in this mandamus that Texas discovery procedure
applies and that under that procedure there are no “special rules” for former Presidents.
However, since Respondent ordered President Bush’s deposition and Respondent’s Order
found this deposition proper under both general Texas discovery procedure and using the
“federal standard,” even if mistaken, is not a basis for granting mandamus relief.
Relators claim “Respondent’s Order erred because there actually are two so-called
Poindexter standards, and he applied the wrong one” and asserts “[t]he cited portion of
Judicial Watch referred to in Respondent’s Order is the Poindexter I standard for obtaining
documents.” Relators are wrong. First, the “test” Respondent’s Order sets out is “his [the
necessary in the sense of being a more logical and more persuasive source of evidence than
alternatives might suggest.” 36 And, Respondent’s Order cites directly to Poindexter II as the
36
MRA Tab 2 at 6 .
-13-
source of that test.37 Relators’ Petition then cites this Court to page 26 of Judicial Watch as
“the cited portion” in Respondent’s Order where it states “demonstrate that the documents
and information sought are material and relevant to the legal questions before the Court.”
Respondent’s Order expressly cites to page 25 of Judicial Watch, where the exact quoted and
underscored language found in the Order is found in the case. It is Relators who are reading
off the wrong page of Judicial Watch. The quoted and underscored language in Judicial
However, the showing the party seeking discovery was required to make was
not one of “need,” but rather one of materiality and relevance pursuant to the
applicable federal rules. See Poindexter I, 727 F. Supp. at 1509; Poindexter II,
732 F. Supp. at 147, both citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). The party seeking
discovery in that case was never required to do anything more than plaintiffs
were required to do here with respect to submission of a disclosed discovery
plan: demonstrate that the documents and information sought are
material and relevant to the legal questions before the Court.(emphasis
added) Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Energy Policy Development Group,
233 F. Supp 2d 16, 25 (D.D.C. 2002).
Respondent’s Order is not erroneous if the “federal standard” applies because the
“meticulous standard” for subpoenaing a President to testify at a federal trial is whether the
testimony will be “relevant and material,” as well as necessary in the sense of being a more
logical and more persuasive source of the evidence that alternatives might suggest.
C. Materiality.
Relators argue to this Court that mandamus is appropriate because “the fundamental
error in Respondent’s Order is that there is no attempt to analyze how the 2002 meeting or
37
MRA Tab 2at 6.
-14-
any other Presidential conversation with SMU representatives relates to an essential element
The Defendants have defensively attacked Vodicka’s claims for fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and conspiracy in their summary judgment factually arguing “in view of the
contingency of whether SMU would be chosen as the host for the Presidential Library at
all” 38 and “the SMU Parties also owe no duty to disclose possible uses of the former U.G.
Condominiums or speculations on the uses others might have for the property in the future
given the speculative and contingent nature of the future award or location of the Presidential
Library, which as of the date of this brief, has yet to be determined.” 39 SMU asserts as a
expectations ...do not constitute material facts.” 40 It also asserts “restraint in speculating
about the unknown future of the Presidential Library does not constitute fraud.” 41
As of March 19, 2007, SMU’s General Counsel and Vice President for Governmental
Relations of Southern Methodist University has stated under oath that the selection of SMU
as the location for the Presidential Library was “in active negotiations” and as of that date
“agreement has not been reached between SMU and the Site Selection Committee regarding
38
SA Tab 6 at 10, ¶ 10.
39
SA Tab 6 at 14, ¶ 20; 16, ¶ 23.
40
SA Tab 6 at 14, ¶ 21.
41
SA Tab 6 at 15, ¶ 23.
-15-
the selection of SMU as the site of the Library...” 42
Vodicka has set forth factually the representations SMU made that it was not
acquiring the UGC units for use for the Presidential Library, as follows.43
During this same meeting, homeowners were concerned that Peruna and SMU
might try and seize control of the University Gardens Condominiums project
to tear it down to build the George W. Bush Presidential Library. Leon
Bennett assured the homeowners that SMU and Peruna had no such intention
to do such. From that meeting in 1999, up and through the end of June 2005,
Peruna and SMU continued to represent that they had no intention of using the
University Gardens Condominium property site to construct any part of the
George W. Bush Library.
Vodicka has also set forth, in factual detail, the conduct of SMU and/or the SMU controlled
Board for the period of time from 1989 to 2005. Up until 2004, the Association’s Board
making the necessary repairs and performing the maintenance of the complex to keep it
running in a first class manner consistent and in accordance with the Condominium By-Laws.
Likewise in that time frame SMU and Peruna maintained its units in good repair and
continually leased these units. However, beginning in 2004, SMU failed to allow the Board
to authorize or expend the sums to continue to maintain the common areas of the University
Garden Condominiums44 and Peruna/SMU began to let its units remain vacate, forgoing
42
SA Tab 7 at 1, ¶ 2; 2, ¶ 3.
43
SA Tab 8 at 7.
44
SA Tab 8 at 9-10.
-16-
$100,000 or more rentals on a monthly basis.45 In response to the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, Vodicka was left to expressly argue the inference that allowing these
units to sit vacant was because SMU would need the Condominium Property immediately
Respondent’s Order sets out that “Plaintiffs claim that emissaries of SMU and
President Bush were involved in conversations about the placement of the library at
approximately the same time that SMU began buying up the units of University Garden.” 47
Respondent’s Order explains that the deposition of President Bush would provide testimony
material to Plaintiffs’ assertions about SMU’s intentions for University Gardens and SMU’s
intent would be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages. The Defendants’
position in this case, that Peruna/SMU did not know that it would get the Bush Library at
any time prior to the SWD, so there was no fraud of breach of fiduciary duty, constitutes a
defense in denial to both Vodicka’s claims for affirmative relief relating to breach of
fiduciary duty/constructive trust/recission and his affirmative defenses relating to title based
upon a constructive trust /recission. Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.2d 418, 426 (Tex. App. -
Dallas 2006, pet. den’d). That makes President Bush’s testimony about what and when he
told SMU things relating to getting the Library highly relevant and material.
Vodicka has pled for exemplary damages against all Defendants as conspirators in
45
SA Tab 8 at 12.
46
SA Tab 8 at 12.
47
MRA Tab 2 p. 2.
-17-
breaches of fiduciary duties owed to him under §41.001 et seq, T EX. C IV. P RAC. & R EM. C.48
The evidence relating to the amount of exemplary damages that is to be considered includes
“the degree of culpability of the wrongdoer.” §41.011(a)(3). T EX. C IV. P RAC. & R EM . C.
Even though Vodicka has pled that all Defendants were engaged in a conspiracy, he is
required to prove the liability of each Defendant for exemplary damages. §41.006, T EX. C IV.
P RAC. & R EM. C. A party who breaches its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff can be assessed
exemplary damages. Kirby v. Cruse, 688 S.W.2d 161, 167 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1985, writ
ref’d, n.r.e.).
that the actions of the defendant were not mere accident which can be shown by proof of
malice or fraud which involves the mental state of the defendant. Columbia Medical Center
of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 132 S.W.3d 671, 686 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2004, affirmed in
part, rev’d in part on other grounds 271 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2008); Bright v. Addison, 171
S.W.3d 588, 604-05 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2005, pet. den’d). A defendant’s subjective
Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 132 S.W.3d at 671. Therefore,
Bush.
Relators also argue to this Court that President Bush’s testimony would not be a more
logical and more persuasive source of evidence. In light of the admitted lack of specific
48
MRA Tab 4 p. 40-41; 67-68.
-18-
recall by Hunt, Turner and Miers of what President Bush has said in the various
conversations, a statement by President Bush as to the date(s) when he told any one or more
of them that the Library would be at SMU would be a more logical and persuasive source of
the evidence. The statement coming from President Bush avoids all possible hearsay
problems. And, President Bush is not a party nor a present or former agent/representative
In Relators’ issues about relevance/materiality they claim that the individuals who
served on the Association’s Board did not owe the unit owners a fiduciary duty and cite to
a single “no petition” San Antonio case. However, §82.103(a) of the Texas Property Code
provides, in pertinent part, that “Each officer or member of the [condominium association]
board is liable as a fiduciary of the unit owners for the officer’s or member’s acts or
This is a codification of a common law rule that those who make the decisions for a
condominium association directly, or through their agents and employees who sit on and
control the board of directors, are fiduciaries of the owners. See Raven’s Cove Townhomes,
Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc., (1981) 114 Cal. App.3d 783, 799, 171 Cal. Rptr. 334.
49
These provisions are not expressly applicable to the UGA board members since the UGA Condominium
Declaration was recorded before January 1, 1994. T EX . P RO P . C. § 82.002( c). An amendment of a code to provide
a right or duty does not preclude the Supreme Court from fashioning a common law rule in conformity therewith to
apply to events not governed by the amendment. E.g. In re S.C.V., 750 S.W .2d 762, 764-65 (Tex. 1988).
-19-
This fiduciary duty owed to the owners runs to the actual board members as well as their
principal. See Behm v. Victory Lane Unit Owner’s Assn, Inc., (1999) 133 Ohio App.3d 484,
Relators limit their abuse of discretion argument to this Court concerning the apex
deposition doctrine test of unique or superior knowledge expressly to “the purpose of the
August, 2002 meeting.” Respondent’s Order on page 7 finds that “President Bush would
likely know whether SMU was the only real contender for the Presidential Library or simply
one of four finalists as the Defendants have contended.” It also finds “President Bush would
also know when he first expressed his decision to select SMU as the sole finalist for his
library.” Therefore, Relators cannot establish a clear abuse of discretion for compelling
Relators admit that they argued to Respondent that the apex deposition doctrine was
an approach “consistent with the federal rule developed for sitting and former Presidents.”
Under the apex deposition doctrine, the deposition of the high ranking officer can be ordered
where either that officer has unique or superior knowledge (one test) or where the officer’s
knowledge is not unique or special and the party seeking the deposition has already resorted
unsuccessfully to seeking the information from other sources (the second test). In re Alcatel
USA, Inc, 11 S.W.3d 173,176 (Tex. 2000)(orig. proceeding). Respondent’s Order finds that
50
Vodicka argued below and continues to assert that Texas procedure neither includes the federal gloss
nor applies the apex deposition doctrine to a former President about knowledge of facts that were not gained while,
and as a result of being, a high corporate officer. In the event that the apex deposition doctrine is applicable,
Respondent properly applied it to the facts of this case.
-20-
Plaintiffs have attempted to obtain this information through other less intrusive means
(namely the depositions of Miers and Hunt) and have been unsuccessful.51 Relators have not
Relators cannot assert to Respondent in the hearing on their Motion for Protection that
the apex doctrine provides the appropriate guidance to Respondent and then establish clear
abuse of discretion in the Mandamus without establishing that the apex doctrine would not
Relators in their Motion for Protective Order stated “Despite uncontradicted evidence
of President Bush’s lack of knowledge of the facts material to this lawsuit, Vodicka insisted
on seeking President Bush’s deposition.” 52 If President Bush can file a pleading that he lacks
knowledge of the facts material to this suit, then he has an appreciation of what the “facts
material to this suit” are and he could file an affidavit to that effect if it was true. He did not
do so. Rather, Relators now argue that an affidavit by a person seeking to avoid a deposition
under the apex doctrine is not required to trigger the process of applying the Crown Central53
guidelines, but do so without citing any case in Texas were an affidavit was not filed by the
person seeking to avoid his deposition and that person was held entitled to protection.
Respondent concluded, based on Alcatel, that “before initiating the Crown Central
guidelines, the official begins the process by ‘moving for protection and filing the corporate
51
MRA Tab 2 at 7, 10
52
MRA Tab 10 at. 2, ¶ I.
53
Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia, 904 S.W .2d 125 (Tex. 1995)
-21-
official’s affidavit denying any knowledge of relevant facts.’” 54 The Supreme Court in
Alcatel stated “A party initiates the Crown Central guideline proceedings by moving for
protection and filing the corporate official’s affidavit denying any knowledge of relevant
Relators argue that filing an affidavit concerning President Bush’s lack of knowledge
is not required under the “analogous” Texas apex deposition doctrine for Relators to establish
a clear abuse of discretion in ordering his deposition. Since the existing Texas Supreme
Court authority states that an affidavit is required under the “analogous” apex deposition
doctrine, both Respondent and this Court are compelled to follow those cases and require an
affidavit in this “analogous” situation. See In re Jane Doe 11, 92 S.W.3d 511, 512 (Tex.
2002)(cautioning the district court that as such it must follow the Supreme Court’s
pronouncements): see also Reynolds v. Nagely, 262 S.W.3d 521, 531 (Tex. App. - Dallas
2008, pet. den.)(“we have no authority to overrule decisions of the Texas Supreme Court”).
Respondent accurately stated and followed the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. A clear
abuse of discretion in not granting Relators’ Motion for Protection asserting the apex
deposition guidelines cannot be shown because there was no affidavit filed in support of the
motion.
Respondent’s Order finds that Plaintiffs have attempted to obtain the information
concerning President Bush’s conversations through less intrusive means (namely the
54
MRA Tab 2 at 9.
-22-
depositions of Miers and Hunt) and have been unsuccessful.55 Relators argue that assuming
President Bush should ever be deposed, he should not be deposed until after the completion
of Mr. Hunt’s deposition “about the Crawford Meeting,” citing In re Alcatel. First, the
Respondent’s Order did not find that the only relevant knowledge President Bush may have
is related to the Crawford meeting.56 Second, this procedure of two hearings, the first one
to stay the deposition and the second one to see what additional discovery on others may have
turn up, was addressed by the Supreme Court in Alcatel and rejected as not being mandatory
where there has already been significant discovery done in the case. Alcatel, 11 S.W.3d at
176.
The party seeking an apex deposition is required to pursue less intrusive means of
discovery “only when that party cannot make the requisite showing concerning unique or
superior knowledge.” Id. (the unsuccessful resort to less intrusive means is the second test).
The less intrusive means are efforts to get the information from some one other than the high
corporate officer. Since “[t]he parties admit that all of the individuals who were involved
in these conversations, except President Bush, have been deposed”,57 which determination
Relators have not challenged, and Respondent concluded that Vodicka had satisfied the
second test of Crown Central, the Respondent’s Order is not subject to “correction” to
55
MRA Tab 2 at 7, 10
56
Respondent’s Order on page 7 finds that “President Bush would likely know whether SMU was the only
real contender for the Presidential Library or simply one of four finalists as the Defendants have contended.” It also
finds “President Bush would also know when he first expressed his decision to select SMU as the sole finalist for his
library.” MRA Tab 2 at 7.
57
MRA Tab 2 at 2.
-23-
provide for a “less intrusive” deposition on written questions propounded to President Bush
mandamus to have this Court substitute what it believes to be the proper limitations would
require this Court to delve into factual issues, which it is not to do on mandamus. Walker,
827 S.W.2d at 839-40. Respondent’s Order does not conflict with the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, since Rule 192.6(b) specifically allows protective orders of the nature of
124 S.W.3d at 181. In fact, Relators’ Motion for Protection sought protection and Relators
have not cited any authority that would require that the protection afforded be different than
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Real Party in Interest Vodicka Gary M. Vodicka requests that
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Kent Brooks
State Bar Card No. 03070710
Preston Commons West
8117 Preston, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75225
(214) 706-9151
(214) 706-9152 Facsimile
-24-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the
counsel of record and Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or hand delivery on this
G. Luke Ashley
Thompson & Knight LLP
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Counsel for Relators
_________________________
Gary M. Vodicka
-25-