In Re Cirrus Design Corporation D/B/A Cirrus Aircraft v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 11, 2023
• Docket: 13-22-00562-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-22-00562-CV & 13-22-00598-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION D/B/A CIRRUS AIRCRAFT

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

By separate petitions for writ of mandamus which we have consolidated, relator

Cirrrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft (Cirrus) contends that the trial court 2

1 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).

2 Cirrus designated the respondent in these original proceedings as the Honorable Robert Vargas;

however, Judge Vargas’s term of office expired on December 31, 2022, and he was succeeded in office by the Honorable Todd Robinson. See id. R. 52.2. Accordingly, we abated and remanded these matters to allow Judge Robinson to reconsider the rulings at issue. See id. R. 7.2(b). After holding a hearing on these abused its discretion by requiring Cirrus to respond to overly broad and unduly

burdensome discovery requests and by entering a “sharing” protective order.

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). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. 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 Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig.

proceeding); In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam); see

In re Shipman, 540 S.W.3d 562, 565 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Further

the scope of a protective order may be subject to review by mandamus. See, e.g., Garcia

v. Peeples, 734 S.W.2d 343, 346–48 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petitions for writ of

matters, Judge Robinson issued orders which were either identical to those orders issued previously or were marginally more expansive. We have received and reviewed supplemental records and briefing from the parties regarding the events on remand and the rulings at issue here. 2 mandamus, the records and supplemental records, the responses filed by the real parties

in interest, and all supplemental briefing, is of the opinion that Cirrus has not met its

burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. First, Cirrus’s contentions regarding the

breadth and relevance of the discovery at issue fail to acknowledge that the record

contains disputed facts that directly concern these matters. See In re Woodfill, 470

S.W.3d 473, 478 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). In fact, Cirrus failed to

include some of the documents evidencing factual disputes within its own mandamus

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Second, the scope of the discovery ordered, which

encompasses the specific aircraft at issue and one other model of that aircraft, is

appropriately restrained in terms of relevance. See In re Exmark Mfg. Co., 299 S.W.3d

519, 525–30 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2009, orig. proceeding [mand.

dism’d]). Third, Cirrus has not shown that the protective order, which contains provisions

contemplating further court involvement and allowing additional protection for specified

documents, fails to properly balance its proprietary needs with public policies regarding

full and fair disclosure. See Garcia, 734 S.W.2d at 346–48; see also In re Cont’l Gen.

Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we lift the

stay previously imposed in these cases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We deny the petitions

for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 11th day of May, 2023.