In Re Joe D. Gonzales v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00456-CV
IN RE Joe D. GONZALES, Relator
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 23, 2024
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED
In this original proceeding, relator Joe D. Gonzales (“Gonzales”) asserts the trial court
abused its discretion when it ordered the District Attorney’s Office—a non-party to the underlying
proceeding—to produce body camera footage, without serving it with notice or a subpoena prior
to the entry of the order compelling production. 2 We agree and conditionally grant relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus. 3
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2024-CI-09317, styled Allen Wrench Handyman & Renovation Services,
Inc. v. Jorge I. Fernandez, pending in the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary
Lou Alvarez presiding.
2
The order directed the “San Antonio District Attorney’s Office” to produce the footage, but no such office exists.
The order was forwarded to Assistant District Attorney Brittany Malloy, of the Bexar County District Attorney’s
Office on July 8, 2024. Relator is the Bexar County District Attorney.
3
This court requested responses from the real party in interest and the respondent, but neither submitted a response.
04-24-00456-CV
BACKGROUND
In the underlying matter, Allen Wrench Handyman & Renovation Services, Inc. (“Allen
Wrench”) is suing Jorge I. Fernandez (“Fernandez”) over the alleged failure to pay for home
renovation services provided by Allen Wrench. 4 The District Attorney’s Office is not a party in
the underlying matter.
On November 8, 2024, officers from the San Antonio Hill Country Village Police
Department were called to the Fernandez home while representatives from Allen Wrench were on
the property. On June 12, 2024, the trial court ordered the District Attorney’s Office to “produce
any and all body camera/interview footage from November 8, 2023, and November 14, 2023,
regarding: Jorge Fernandez, Seth Hamilton Allen, John Wayne Allen, and/or an incident occurring
at 16330 Axis Trail, San Antonio, Texas 78232 that can be identified as Hill Country Police
Department Incident Number 230781.” 5
LEGAL STANDARD
“Mandamus relief is warranted when the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the
relator has no adequate appellate remedy.” In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex. 2017) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding)). “A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if ‘it reaches a decision so
arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law’ [or if it clearly
fails] to analyze or apply the law correctly . . . .” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex.
2006) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.
4
In its Second Amended Petition, Allen Wrench has asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, quantum
meruit, and violation of the Texas Prompt Pay Act, and is seeking foreclosure on a mechanic’s lien, has requested
declaratory relief, and has applied for a writ of sequestration.
5
Aside from the trial court’s order, the mandamus record does not reflect an additional incident on November 14,
2023.
-2-
04-24-00456-CV
1985), disapproved of on other grounds by In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary,
L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)). “A discovery order that compels production
beyond the rules of procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.”
In re C&J Energy Servs., Inc., No. 13-20-00503-CV, 2021 WL 1748090, at *4 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 4, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).
“Mandamus is appropriate to review a trial court’s pre-trial discovery orders . . . “ In re Aguilar,
No. 04-13-00425-CV, 2013 WL 4501435, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2013, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840).
ANALYSIS
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure “clearly provide that in order to obtain the production
of documents from a non-party, a party must serve a notice to produce documents and a discovery
subpoena.” In re Guardianship of Benavides, No. 04-13-00196-CV, 2014 WL 1494606, at *2
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 16, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 205.3(a)).
“The notice and subpoena must be served on the non-party and on all other parties to the litigation.”
Id. (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 205.2).
There is no dispute that the District Attorney’s Office was not a party to the underlying
proceeding at the time of the trial court’s order. Therefore, to obtain the sought body camera
footage from the District Attorney’s Office, the parties must follow the applicable rules of
procedure governing obtaining nonparty records. See Texas Educ. Agency v. Anthony, 700 S.W.2d
192, 192 (Tex.1985) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (conditionally granting a writ of mandamus
“[b]ecause the nonparty school districts were not provided with notice and a hearing”).
Neither party in the underlying proceeding sought to compel the production of the
requested body camera footage by notice or service of a subpoena on the District Attorney’s Office
-3-
04-24-00456-CV
as required by rule 205. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 205.1, 205.3. Accordingly, the trial court abused its
discretion when it compelled production of the body camera footage. See In re Dana Corp., 138
S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (“A trial court’s ruling that requires production
beyond what our procedural rules permit is an abuse of discretion.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it compelled
production from a non-party in violation of Rule 205 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate the
portion of its June 12, 2024 order directing the District Attorney’s Office to “produce any and all
body camera/interview footage from November 8, 2023, and November 14, 2023, regarding: Jorge
Fernandez, Seth Hamilton Allen, John Wayne Allen, and/or an incident occurring at 16330 Axis
Trail, San Antonio, Texas 78232 that can be identified as Hill Country Police Department Incident
Number 230781.” The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate this order within fifteen
days from the date of our opinion and order.
PER CURIAM
-4-