we next determine whether the trial court erred in the appointing Ball as a special master. Rule 171 permits a trial court to appoint a special master “in exceptional cases, for good cause.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 171. While the “ ‘exceptional cases/good cause’ criterion of Rule 171 is not susceptible of precise definition,” the supreme court has held that “this requirement cannot be met merely by showing that a case is complicated or time-consuming, or that the court is busy.” Simpson, 806 S.W.2d at 811. However, courts have found sufficient justification for the appointment of a master to supervise “discovery questions which require extensive examination of highly technical and complex documents by a person having both a technical and a legal background.” TransAmerican, 877 S.W.2d at 843 (<HOLDING>); see also Hourani v. Katzen, 305 S.W.3d 239,
holding that the technical nature of the present case and the potential help which may be provided to the trial court by a special master with geological training and expertise constitutes a sufficiently exceptional condition to justify the present appointment holding that a statute that provided that the court may appoint a guardian ad litem left the court with discretion to make an appointment holding where 1 the government provided the defendant with all the necessary drugmaking materials 2 the government provided instructions on how to make the drugs and 3 the defendant sought out the materials and help from the undercover government agents the case set the outer limits to which the government may go in the quest to ferret out and prosecute crimes but the governments conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law