Opinion
13-23-00216-CV
08-24-2023
IN RE CDM CONSTRUCTORS, INC. AND CDM SMITH, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
By petition for writ of mandamus, relators CDM Constructors, Inc. and CDM Smith, Inc. contend that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion to compel them to respond to three requests for production propounded by the real party in interest, the City of Weslaco, Texas (City). Relators present two issues through which they assert that the trial court erred by: (1) compelling them to "produce discovery about unrelated matters involving a lawsuit with the U.S. Navy in Virginia and an investigation of a different foreign affiliate in India," and (2) compelling them to respond to a separate request for production that the City "withdrew from seeking at the hearing on the motion to compel."
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (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 Kuraray Am., Inc., 656 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). When "a discovery order compels production of 'patently irrelevant or duplicative documents' . . . there is no adequate remedy by appeal because the order 'imposes a burden on the producing party far out of proportion to any benefit that may obtain to the requesting party.'" In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the record, the response filed by the City, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10.
The discovery requests under review in relators' first issue regarding "unrelated matters" are relevant to the subject matter of the underlying proceeding and appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as they concern actions taken by a party to this proceeding, present the same or similar issues, and are intrinsically limited in time, scope, and geographic region. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a); see also In re Cook, No. 05-19-01283-CV, 2020 WL 2552881, at *3 (Tex. App.- Dallas May 20, 2020, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.); In re Am. Power Conversion Corp., No. 04-12-00140-CV, 2012 WL 5507111, at *5 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Nov. 14, 2012, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.); In re Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc., No. 13-11-00197-CV, 2011 WL 3855745, at *9-10 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 31, 2011, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). We deny mandamus relief as to relators' first issue.
With regard to relators' second issue asserting that the City abandoned or withdrew its request for production pertaining to the water treatment project in Rio Grande City, Texas, we conclude that the record indicates that there are factual disputes regarding whether a discovery agreement reached between the parties encompasses this request for production. See In re Woodfill, 470 S.W.3d 473, 478 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ("Disputed facts, however, prevent the Court from resolving issues in a mandamus proceeding."); In re Cap Rock Elec. Co-op., Inc., 35 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding) (stating that "it is clear that a court of appeals may not grant mandamus relief when the petition and record require the court to speculate"). We deny relief without prejudice as to relators' second issue.