in Re Dr. Sanjay Khanduja

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 24, 2020
• Docket: 01-20-00577-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued November 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00577-CV ——————————— IN RE DR. SANJAY KHANDUJA, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR WITH WILL ANNEXED IN THE ESTATE OF DR. R.K. DHINGRA A/K/A RAKESH K. DHINGRA, DECEASED, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Dr. Sanjay Khanduja, Independent Administrator with Will Annexed

in the Estate of Dr. R.K. Dhingra, also known as Rakesh K. Dhingra, Deceased, has

filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order denying

his motion for leave to designate expert witnessse and inspect property after the

expiration of the expert designation deadline set by the trial court. We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.1

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited

circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). In the

case of a challenge to a decision within the trial court’s discretion, mandamus will

only issue where relator establishes that “the trial court failed to reach the only

reasonable conclusion.” In re Memorial Hermann Hosp. Sys., 464 S.W.3d 686, 698

(Tex. 2015). Discovery matters are generally within the trial court’s sound

discretion, but “mandamus will issue to correct a discovery order if the order

constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal.”

See In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998).

Relator has not demonstrated that the trial court committed an abuse of

discretion by denying relator’s motion for leave to designate expert witnesses and

inspect property after the expiration of the expert designation deadline set by the trial

court. See Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Tex. 1989) (“The

scope of discovery and the admission of evidence is principally within the discretion

of the trial court.”).

1 The underlying case is Estate of Dr. R.K. Dhingra, a/k/a Rakesh Kumar Dhingra, Deceased v. David Scheffler, Individually, the 2525 Brothers, L.P. d/b/a Venture Holdings, Inc., and Venture REO Services, L.P., Cause No. 396745-403, in Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jerry Simoneaux presiding.

2 Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss