in Re Theodore Putman and Litchfield Cavo, LLP ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00358-CV
__________________
IN RE THEODORE PUTMAN AND LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B-208,118
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relators Theodore Putman and Litchfield
Cavo, LLP contend the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered an additional
deposition of Putman. Relators also argue the trial court abused its discretion by
failing to consider lesser sanctions, such as ordering a second deposition limited to
certain questions.
We may grant mandamus relief to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion
when an appeal is an inadequate remedy. 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
1
833, 839-40 (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). 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 at 136.
After considering the petition, the mandamus record, the response, the
transcript of the hearing, and balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
detriments, we conclude that Relators have not established that the trial court’s
rulings constitute an abuse of discretion from which there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on November 18, 2022
Opinion Delivered December 8, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
2