Texas Business Court Decision – November 11, 2026
No. 26-BC01B-0018 Joseph Beard v. Henry Ross Perot, Jr., et al (First Division, Judge Whitehill) 2026 Tex. Bus. 81 26-bc01b-0018-beard-v-perot-2026-tex-bus-81.pdf
Rule 91a.7 Fees
Background.
The court dismissed Beard’s claims against the defendants under Rule 91a on August 10, 2026. Its order did not address discretionary fees under Rule 91a.7. The court later issued a 72-page opinion, Beard v. Perot, 2026 Tex. Bus. 65. It then asked the parties for a joint plan on fees, but they did not submit one. Defendants moved for Rule 91a.7 fees on October 15. Beard responded by noticing depositions of all defendants and serving written discovery on defendant Perot Jain. Defendants moved to quash the Notices of Deposition and for a protective order. Beard moved to strike defendants’ fee-expert disclosure as untimely under the April 6 scheduling order in the case, which set a September 1 expert-designation deadline. Defendants had disclosed in their April 24 Rule 194/195 disclosures that they would seek fees as damages through expert testimony from Haynes and Boones, LLP lawyers Richard Anigian and Ronald Breaux. The disclosures stated the amount was not yet quantified.
Issues:
- Whether defendants’ attorneys-fees expert disclosures satisfied Ruled 194 and 195 and the scheduling order, or should be stricken as untimely.
- Alternatively, whether Beard suffered unfair surprise or unfair prejudice under Rule 193.6
- Whether the court should quash Beard’s deposition notices and discovery directed at defendants after dismissal.
Discussion.
Disclosure Adequacy. The motion to strike is denied. The April 24 disclosures complied with Rule 194.2(b). Nothing in Rule 195 required defendants to state an amount or produce invoices at that stage. The court relied on Cresson Interest, LLC v. Rooster, No. 02-21-00366-CV, 2022 WL 3904968, at *11-12 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, August 31, 2022, pet. denied). Cresson held that fee evidence need not be produced until the fee issue is ripe. The court reads Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W. 3d 469 (Tex. 2019), as addressing proof of fees, not the adequacy of the disclosures. The court concluded the issue was ripe no earlier than September 24, when it asked for a fee plan. That date was after the September 1 deadline. Defendants’ disclosures were therefore timely and adequate. The record showed no document request for the billing records and no request for an expert report or deposition. The court did not reach whether defendants had to show a Rule 193.6 exception.
Surprise and Prejudice. Alternatively, defendants carried their Rule 193.6 burden. Beard had known since April 24 that defendants would use their counsel as fee experts, based on billing records and lodestar factors. He also received a 45-day extension to designate a rebuttal expert.
Motion to Quash. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Beard may take reasonable discovery on the reasonableness and necessity of the Rule 91a.7 fees. However, a number of the requests in the Perot-Jain corporate-representative notice went to the merits of the dismissed claim. Those topics are beyond the scope of permissible discovery and would subject defendants to waste, abuse, and unnecessary expense under Rule 192.6(b), and they are quashed. The court determined that phased discovery would be appropriate in the case: written responses, then a deposition of Anigian or Breaux as to the reasonableness and necessity of defendants’ rule 91a.7 attorneys’ fees and expenses, then a request to the court for more discovery. The court requires that all depositions must take place in the court’s conference room, so that any disputes can be resolved without delay or additional costs.