Toyota settled a personal-injury lawsuit in April of 2007, and the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case by law 30 days after that. Two and a half years later, the plaintiff sought to reopen the case and get monetary sanctions for an alleged violation of a discovery order. The company appealed to the Texas Supreme Court to order that the discovery be halted, since the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case.
The NAM filed an amicus brief in support, arguing that the trial court's proceedings disturb the public policy in favor of finality. There is a strong societal and judicial interest in bringing cases to an end. The proceedings also undermine settlement agreements, since every settled case has the possibility that new evidence could come to light, and the parties take that into consideration when they agree to settle. In addition, there are several legal avenues the plaintiff can pursue other than reopening a case that has been settled, without burdening the courts with never-ending challenges to final judgments.
Unfortunately, on Aug. 27, the Texas Supreme Court denied Toyota's request.