in Re Gloria Araceli Loeza Aceves ( 2013 )

NUMBER 13-13-00112-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE GLORIA ARACELI LOEZA ACEVES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Gloria Araceli Loeza Aceves, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and
request for emergency temporary relief in the above cause on February 28, 2013. By
order issued that same day, the Court granted the request for emergency temporary
relief and requested the real party in interest, Paul James Hudson, to file a response to
the petition for writ of mandamus. On March 21, 2013, relator filed a supplemental
mandamus record, and on April 9, 2013, the real party in interest also filed a
1
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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
1
supplemental mandamus record and filed his response to the petition for writ of
mandamus.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to
mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig.
proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41
(Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
The scope of discovery is generally within the trial court's discretion. Dillard
Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995). Parties may seek
discovery "regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action . . . ." TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a). Information is relevant if it
tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more or less probable than it would be without the information. TEX. R. EVID. 401.
However, a trial court abuses its discretion when it orders discovery exceeding the
scope permitted by the rules of procedure. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152.
Mandamus relief is available when the trial court compels production beyond the
permissible bounds of discovery. In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322
(Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.
1998) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, the response thereto, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator
2
has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d at 135–36; see, e.g., Republic Ins. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Tex.
1993) (orig. proceeding); In re Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Am., 269 S.W.3d 679 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this
Court is LIFTED. 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."). The petition for
writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
11th day of April, 2013.
3