Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
IN RE SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC. AND LILIANA SALINAS
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes
GREGORY T. PERKES JUSTICE 
Southwest Key Programs, Inc. and Liliana Salinas filed a
petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial
court to vacate orders denying their motions to quash and for
protective orders regarding the depositions of fourteen
witnesses, "including numerous apex
officials." See Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v.
Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125, 128-29 (Tex. 1995) (orig.
proceeding); see also In re Daisy Mfg. Co., Inc., 17
S.W.3d 654, 656-60 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam); In re Alcatel USA, Inc., 11 S.W.3d 173,
175-81 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding). In the underlying
litigation, real parties in interest David Gonzalez Hernandez
and Doris Gutierrez have filed suit against relators for
personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
Relators have asserted that they possess "charitable
immunity and limitation on liability as to all causes of
action alleged" by the real parties under the Charitable
Immunity and Liability Act of 1987. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 81.001-.008.
is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery
Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear
abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492
S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). Relators bear
the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B.
Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial
court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made
without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting
evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494
S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford
Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We
determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing
the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments.
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex.
2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
relief is appropriate when a trial court abuses its
discretion by denying a motion to quash an apex deposition.
In re Alcatel USA, Inc., 11 S.W.3d at 175; In re
TMX Fin. of Tex., Inc., 472 S.W.3d 864, 872 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding) ("A
party may properly seek mandamus relief to determine whether
the trial court correctly ordered an apex deposition.");
In re Miscavige, 436 S.W.3d 430, 435 (Tex.
App.-Austin 2014, orig. proceeding) ("Mandamus relief is
appropriate when a trial court allows an apex deposition to
go forward in violation of the standard governing such
discovery."). Similarly, a "discovery order that
compels production beyond the rules of procedure is an abuse
of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy."
In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 223
(Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding).
conclude that relators have not met their burden to obtain
mandamus relief regarding the matters presented in this
original proceeding. See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,
492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
Leaving aside other issues pertaining to the applicability of
the apex doctrine to all fourteen witnesses, relators have
failed to meet the requirements to quash an apex deposition
as expressly delineated by the Texas Supreme Court because
the record fails to include affidavits by these individuals
denying any knowledge of relevant facts. See In re
Alcatel USA, Inc., 11 S.W.3d at 175 ("A party
initiates the Crown Central guideline proceedings by
moving for protection and filing the corporate official's
affidavit denying any knowledge of relevant facts.");
Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 904 S.W.2d at 128
(providing "guidelines" for determining when a
party seeks to depose an apex official requiring the movant
to file a "motion for protective order to prohibit the
deposition accompanied by the official's affidavit
denying any knowledge of relevant facts"); see also
In re Blue Creek Real Properties, LLC, No.
13-18-00308-CV, 2018 WL 3583645, at *2 (Tex. App.-Corpus
Christi-Edinburg July 26, 2018, orig. proceeding [mand.
denied]) (mem. op.). And, to the extent that relators assert
that the real parties' production requests are overbroad,
such an issue is not before the Court insofar as relators
expressly disavow that they are challenging the trial
court's oral rulings as to the two corporate
representative depositions, which are the only deposition
notices in the record that include subpoenas duces tecum.
Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this
case. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b) ("Unless
vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is
effective until the case is finally decided."). We deny
the petition for writ of mandamus.
 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d)
("When denying relief, the court may hand down an
opinion but is not required to do so."); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum
 The depositions at issue in this
original proceeding include the following individuals
associated with relator Southwest Key Programs, Inc.: Joella
Brooks, the current interim Chief Executive Officer; Yvonne
Chor, the current Director of Finance; Erin Marin, the
current Chief Financial Officer; Geraldo Rivera, the Vice
President of Immigration Services; Victor Garza, Catalina
Gracia, David Marshall, Orlando Martinez, Rosa Santis, and
Anselmo Villarreal, who are current board members; Melody
Chung, the former Chief Financial Officer; Elizabeth S.