Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
IN RE BRANSCOMB P.C., SHANNON WILDE, JAMES ROBICHAUX, MICHAEL W. STUKENBERG, JAMES CLANCY, OMAR LEAL, KEITH SIECZKOWSKI, JEFFREY S. DICKERSON, RHONDA JOLLEY, AND GRADY JOLLEY
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes.
M. BENAVIDES, JUSTICE. 
Branscomb P.C., Shannon Wilde, James Robichaux, Michael W.
Stukenberg, James Clancy, Omar Leal, Keith Sieczkowski,
Jeffrey S. Dickerson, Rhonda Jolley, and Grady Jolley filed a
petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to
compel the trial court to vacate a discovery order signed on
July 30, 2019. Relators contend that the discovery order is
void due to the expiration of the trial court's plenary
power or, alternatively, constitutes an abuse of discretion
because the trial court has ordered relators to respond to
requests for production that seek discovery exceeding the
bounds permitted by the rules of civil procedure.
is an extraordinary remedy issued at the discretion of the
court. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ of
mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order
is void or is a clear abuse of discretion and there is no
adequate appellate remedy. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of
Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding);
see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
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 at 712; Ford
Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). A
trial court abuses its discretion by ordering discovery that
exceeds the scope permitted by the rules of procedure. In
re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd., 559 S.W.3d
128, 130-31 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding); In re CSX
Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam).
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).
If an appellate court cannot remedy a trial court's
discovery error, then an adequate appellate remedy does not
exist. In re Christus Santa
Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016)
(orig. proceeding); In re Weekley Homes,
L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322 (Tex. 2009) (orig.
proceeding). When an order is void, the relator need not show
the lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and mandamus relief
is appropriate. In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d
256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In
re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, the response filed by real party in
interest Kenton McDonald, the reply filed by the relators,
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relators
have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this
cause. 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 granting relief, the court must hand down an
opinion as in any other case," but when "denying
relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so."); id. R. 47.4