in Re Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00243-CV
IN RE RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC.
and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On April 22, 2015, relators Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. and Ryder Integrated Logistics
of Texas, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of respondent’s orders denying
Ryder’s motion to compel the oral deposition of the plaintiff, and placing restrictions on Ryder’s
independent mental examination of the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit. The
court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed on behalf of the
real parties in interest and relators’ reply, and is of the opinion that respondent has not abused his
discretion and relators are therefore not presently entitled to the relief sought. Based on the
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CI-03779, styled Denise Molina and George Duzane, Co-conservators
of Rafael “Ralph” Molina and Rafael “Ralph” Molina v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.; Ryder Integrated Logistics
of Texas, LLC; and Ernesto Solis, Lucila Solis, Sonia Martin Solis, Elijah Angel Solis, and Roberto Solis Jr., Legal
Heirs of the Estate of Roberto Solis Sr., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the
Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. presiding.
04-15-00243-CV
mandamus record filed in this court, the respondent has specifically acknowledged relators’ ability
to seek further relief from the trial court if the deposition and examination, as presently limited,
prove to be inadequate for purposes of discovery. But see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843-
44 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus may be appropriate to review order denying discovery which
effectively denies reasonable opportunity to develop merits of the case). Accordingly, the petition
for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
-2-