Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00257-CV
05-17-2017
IN RE TERRY JOE CLINE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but 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).
Terry Joe Cline brought suit against H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P. (H.E.B.) for damages resulting from personal injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell on a grape at an H.E.B. store in Mission, Texas. By petition for writ of mandamus, Cline seeks to compel the trial court to require H.E.B. to answer two interrogatories regarding "the number of customers who made purchases in your grocery stores" and "the total number of sales transactions which were conducted in your grocery stores" for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013." The trial court has required H.E.B. to respond to these interrogatories "only for the store location where the incident in question happened." Cline has also filed a motion to stay the trial court proceedings pending resolution of this petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.
Relator has also filed a motion for leave to exceed the word count for his petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i). We grant relator's motion for leave and consider his petition for writ of mandamus on the merits.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)) (orig. proceeding). As applicable to this proceeding, a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies discovery "going to the heart of a party's case" and that party has no adequate remedy by appeal to challenge such a ruling. Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 771-72 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656, 663 (Tex. 2009).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Cline has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion to stay the trial court proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a),(d).
DORI CONTRERAS
Justice Delivered and filed the 17th day of May, 2017.