In Re Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., and Alejandro Gallegos Mejorado v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00003-CV
IN RE MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., AND
ALEJANDRO GALLEGOS MEJORADO
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., and Alejandro Gallegos Mejorado (collectively Relators)
have petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Relators ask us to compel the Honorable Angela
Saucier, presiding judge of the 76th Judicial District Court of Morris County, Texas, to vacate
her order denying Relators’ motion for protective order and to grant a protective order
prohibiting any deposition questioning of Mejorado, except as to damages. We deny Relators’
petition for a writ of mandamus.
The underlying cause of action is a personal injury suit filed against Relators as a result
of a truck/automobile accident. After the real parties in interest sought to depose Mejorado,
Relators filed, in December 2022, a motion for protective order to limit the scope of the
deposition. On May 24, 2023, the trial court heard the parties’ arguments and orally denied
Relators’ motion. The trial court entered its written order denying the motion on June 1, 2023.
Relators filed their petition for a writ of mandamus on January 16, 2024.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the
discretion of the court.” Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig.
proceeding) (citing Callahan v. Giles, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1941) (orig. proceeding)).
“Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable
principles.” Id. (citing Callahan, 155 S.W.2d at 795). “One such principle is that ‘[e]quity aids
the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting
Callahan, 155 S.W.2d at 795). “Thus, a relator who unduly or unreasonably delays filing a
petition for mandamus relief may waive its right to such relief unless the delay is justified.” In
2
re Am. Airlines, Inc., 634 S.W.3d 38, 43 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re
Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding)).
In Rivercenter Associates, the Texas Supreme Court denied mandamus because of an
unjustified four-month delay by the relator. Rivercenter Assocs., 858 S.W.2d at 367–68; see In
re Salton, No. 04-10-00486-CV, 2010 WL 2782821, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (mandamus denied because of unexplained seven-month
delay). In this case, Relators waited seven and one-half months after their motion for a
protective order was denied to file their mandamus petition, and the record does not show an
explanation or justification for the delay. As a result, Relators have not demonstrated that they
diligently pursued their rights. See Rivercenter Assocs., 858 S.W.2d at 367.
We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Charles van Cleef
Justice
Date Submitted: March 11, 2024
Date Decided: March 12, 2024
3