In Re: Juan G. Duran v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
IN RE § No. 08-23-00186-CV
JUAN G. DURAN, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Relator. § IN MANDAMUS
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Juan G. Duran, filed an original petition for writ of mandamus asserting the trial
court clearly abused its discretion in granting a motion to compel the production of documents that
allegedly exceeded the scope of discovery or were protected by the trade-secret privilege and that
he has no adequate remedy on appeal. The requests for 2016-2023 information pertained to eight
businesses allocated as Relator’s separate property while Relator and Real Party in Interest (RPI)
were married, pursuant to a 2019 partition agreement, which RPI alleges, in the present divorce
proceeding, is not enforceable. Moreover, RPI alleges Relator’s separate property is implicated in
the present case for the trial court to determine a just and right division of the community estate.
We have reviewed Relator’s petition, the mandamus record, and RPI’s response, and
conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in granting the motion to compel
production of documents because Relator did not meet his burden to establish that the requests
exceeded the scope of discovery or that the information sought constitutes trade secrets. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (requiring a “clear and concise argument for the contentions made with
appropriate citations to authorities”); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.002(6)
(defining trade secrets); In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735 739 (Tex. 2003) (explaining six-factor test
courts apply to determine whether a trade secret exists (citing RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 757 cmt.
b. (1939); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 39 reporter’s n. cmt. d.)).
Having found that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion, we deny the petition
for mandamus. In re Eagleridge Operating, LLC, 642 S.W.3d 518, 526 (Tex. 2022) (the trial court
must have clearly abused its discretion and relator must have no adequate remedy on appeal for
the appellate court to grant mandamus relief).
LISA J. SOTO, Justice
September 5, 2023
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
2