IN RE: VENKY VENKATRAMAN (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is relator's May 10, 2017 petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains of the trial court's protective order quashing a trial subpoena issued by relator. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relators' petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE