in Re Bradley Blommaert and Terese Blommaert and Mike Blommaert, Relators ( 2011 )

NO. 07-11-00449-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
DECEMBER 19, 2011
IN RE BRADLEY BLOMMAERT AND TERESE
BLOMMAERT AND MIKE BLOMMAERT, RELATORS
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Before the Court in this original proceeding is Relators’ “Request to Abate
Application for Writ of Mandamus” in which Relators explain that the trial court has
granted Relators’ request for entry of an amended discovery control plan and, under
such plan, it is possible that Relators will obtain the discovery to which they believe
themselves entitled. However, Relators cite what they characterize as an ongoing
practice by the Real Parties in Interest to refuse to provide requested discovery and, in
anticipation of the possibility that such practice continues, request that we abate
Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. Relators also request that they be permitted to
withdraw their pending motion for emergency relief.
In their petition, Relators complain of the trial court’s “erroneous discovery
rulings” and seek extraordinary relief on that basis. Relators have advised the Court
that the trial court entered an amended discovery control plan on November 29, 2011,
and have provided a copy of that order to the Court in support of their request to abate
their petition. Based on our review of the record provided, it appears that, by entering
the amended discovery control plan and rescheduling relevant deadlines and the trial
date, the trial court has granted to Relators the relief requested in their petition.
That said, the issues brought to the Court’s attention by said petition have been
rendered moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005)
(observing that “[a] case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the
parties at any stage of the legal proceedings”). On this basis, we deny Relators’ motion
to abate these original proceedings and their motion for emergency relief in connection
with their petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.
Further, mandamus will not issue “if for any reason it would be useless or
unavailing.” Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (quoting
Holcombe v. Fowler, 118 Tex. 42, 9 S.W.2d 1028, 1028 (Tex. 1928)). Therefore,
having concluded that the issues raised in the petition are moot, we deny Relators’
petition for writ of mandamus without reference to the merits of the petition and without
prejudice to Relators’ right to re-file a petition relating to subsequent discovery disputes
that may develop as this case proceeds in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Per Curiam
2