in Re Bluebonnet Financial Assets

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September 20, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-00702-CV

In Re Bluebonnet Financial Assets, Relator

  ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

  WRIT OF MANDAMUS

County Court at Law No.2

Galveston County

Trial Court Cause No. 62,683

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 17, 2011, relator Bluebonnet Financial Assets filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Barbara E. Roberts, presiding judge of the County Court at Law No 2 of Galveston County to vacate her order denying its motion to reconsider the court’s discovery order.

Background

Relator filed suit against the real party in interest, Tiburcio Parras for failure to pay his line of credit at Chase Bank. Parras counterclaimed asserting wrongful collection and alleging that Chase put his name on a credit card without his knowledge.  Extensive discovery ensued.  Relator contends that on July 25, 2011, the trial court, without a written order, orally ordered relator to produce all balance sheets, profit and loss statements, financial statements, and tax returns of creditor holdings from January 1, 2005 to the present.  On July 27, 2011, relator filed a motion to reconsider on which it expected a hearing August 26.  On August 11, 2011, the trial court denied the motion to reconsider and ordered relator to produce the information within seven days.

In response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, the trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The trial court held a hearing on July 25, 2011, and ordered relator to produce its net worth and earnings for the last five years to the court for an in camera inspection.  At the hearing, relator advised the court it could produce the documents for in camera inspection by July 29, 2011.  On July 27, 2011, relator filed its motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied because relator’s motion did not properly address the court’s order. 

Relator contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering it to comply with a request for production that is clearly outside the allowable limits of discovery.  Relator, however, failed to comply with the trial court’s order to produce the documents for in camera inspection.  Equity is generally not served by issuing an extraordinary writ against a trial court judge on a ground that the trial judge thus had no opportunity to address.  In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).  In this case, relator has failed to comply with the court’s order to produce the documents in camera. Therefore, according to the court’s findings, the trial court did not order relator to produce discovery to the other party, but ordered relator to produce the documents for in camera inspection to determine whether they are discoverable

Because relator did not comply with the court’s order, it has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.  The stay ordered August 18, 2011 is lifted.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison.