Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00079-CV
02-08-2018
IN RE ARTURO GARCIA AND AURELIA GARCIA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
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).
Arturo Garcia and Aurelia Garcia brought suit against H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P. (H.E.B.) for damages resulting from personal injuries Arturo sustained when he slipped and fell on fluid from a processed meat container at an H.E.B. store in McAllen, Texas. By petition for writ of mandamus, the Garcias seek to compel the trial court to vacate its discovery orders and require the "production of evidence concerning slip/fall incidents in all of Defendant's Texas grocery stores for the four-year period 2010-2013." According to the Garcias, the trial court has "permitted Plaintiffs' discovery of slip/fall incident reports only in three of Defendant's hundreds of stores, and only if the incident reports refer to meat-department items as the causes of the incidents." Relators assert, inter alia, that this evidence "is relevant because all of the departments in all of Defendant's Texas grocery stores employ the same slip/fall prevention policies and procedures." Relators argue that this evidence is necessary to show that the slip/fall risk to Plaintiff Arturo Garcia associated with shopping in one of Defendant's Texas grocery stores on the occasion in question was an unreasonable risk of harm."
This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number C-5581-13-I in the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Keno Vasquez. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. The original discovery order complained of was rendered on June 19, 2017. The trial court entered an order nunc pro tunc correcting that discovery order on July 27, 2017. The trial court denied reconsideration of its order on October 19, 2017.
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 the Garcias have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a),(d).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice Delivered and filed the 8th day of February, 2018.