Moreover, the January 20, 2009 Rule 11 Agreement between Ogden and Arthur’s counsel was an ly sought to enforce his rights by filing a motion to clarify the January 27 order appointing Craig Ball as special master within days after it was signed by the trial court. That motion was not heard until May 8. In the hearing, Harris argued that the trial court had improperly included him in the order requiring him and several other defendants to produce theft computers and electronic storage devises, and he raised the Weekley Homes case. Harris thus objected to the appointment of the special master before he complied with the May 11, 2009 order compelling him to produce three hard drives to the special master. Therefore, he did make a timely objection. See Caldwell, 830 S.W.2d at 625-26 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the argument of delay does not
holding that ports authority was not a condemning body as defined in the special master act holding that special courts appointment of independent prosecutor not incongruous holding that defendant did not waive special appearance holding that reviewing court should accord deference to special masters decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the special master holding that party timely objected to appointment of special master and did not waive its right to object when it objected to appointment several days before it participated in proceedings before special master