Summary
denying mandamus relief on order compelling production where trial court had not conducted an in camera review and had not made any further orders with respect to those documents
Summary of this case from In re HarrisOpinion
No. 08-03-00361-CV.
August 28, 2003.
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS.
Attorney for Relator: Hon. Robert A. Skipworth, 310 N. Mesa, Suite 600, El Paso, TX 79901.
Respondent: The Honorable Richard Roman, Judge, 346th Dist. Court of El Paso County, 500 E. San Antonio, Suite 701, El Paso, TX 79901.
Before Panel No. 5: LARSEN, McCLURE, and WITTIG, JJ. Wittig, J., sitting by assignment.
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original proceeding in mandamus. Brother Samuel Martinez seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to vacate a discovery order denying his motion for protective order, compelling production of certain records, and reviewing records in camera to determine whether they are privileged. For the reasons stated below, we deny relief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Mandamus will lie only to correct a clear abuse of discretion. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Moreover, there must be no other adequate remedy at law. Id.
1. Clear abuse of discretion
An appellate court rarely interferes with a trial court's exercise of discretion. A clear abuse of discretion warranting correction by mandamus occurs when a court issues a decision which is without basis or guiding principles of law. See Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). With respect to resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial court's discretion, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-40. The relator must therefore establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Id. at 840. Even if the reviewing court would have decided the issue differently, it cannot disturb the trial court's decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. With respect to a trial court's determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling, the standard is much less deferential. A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
2. No adequate remedy by appeal
An appellate court will deny mandamus relief if another remedy, usually appeal, is available and adequate. Street v. Second Court of Appeals, 715 S.W.2d 638, 639-40 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus will not issue where there is "`a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.'" Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840 (quoting State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984)). Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances. The writ will issue "`only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies.'" Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989) (quoting James Sales, Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Civil Appeals of Texas in Appellate Procedure in Texas, Sec. 1.4(1)(b) at 47 [2d Ed. 1979]).
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE COURT
The record before us does not reflect that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by issuing the discovery order dated July 30, 2003. Additionally, the mandamus proceeding is premature with respect to those documents being reviewed in camera by the trial court as the court has not made any further orders with respect to them. Accordingly, we vacate the stay orders previously entered in this proceeding and deny the relief requested in the petition for writ of mandamus.