IN RE: Dr. Robert C. Brace

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg.

IN RE: Dr. Robert C. Brace

NUMBER 13–16–00056–CV

Decided: February 24, 2016

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria


Relator, Dr. Robert C. Brace, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a December 7, 2015 order denying his motion to compel (1) the production of an investigative file, and (2) the deposition of City of McAllen Commissioner Veronica Whitacre.  This Court requested and received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, the City of McAllen.

“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).  It is the relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding);  In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2004, 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.  In this regard, a discovery order that compels production beyond the rules of civil procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.  In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex.2014) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam);  In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex.2009) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam)).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the record and supplemental record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See id. 52.8(a).



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

Copied to clipboard