IN RE: Villalobos & Vaughan (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Villalobos & Vaughan, PLLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to direct the trial court to vacate a January 21, 2016 order compelling relator to produce “privileged, confidential, and irrelevant attorney-client documents.”  This Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, Raul Medina.

“Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal.”  In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex.2012) (orig.proceeding);  see In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.2010) (orig.proceeding);  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 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding).  A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law.  In re Olshan Found.  Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d at 888;  Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.  In determining whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review.  In re BP Prods.  N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex.2008) (orig.proceeding);  In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief.  See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36.  Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED.  See Tex.R.App. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”).  The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See Id. 52.8(a).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”);  Tex.R.App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).