in Re E.I. duPont De Nemours and Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re E.I. duPont De Nemours and Company

133 S.W.3d 677, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4473, 2003 WL 21210460

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 22, 2003

Docket09-03-00195-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 S.W.3d 677 (in Re E.I. duPont De Nemours and Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in Re E.I. duPont De Nemours and Company, 133 S.W.3d 677, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4473, 2003 WL 21210460 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinions

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

DON BURGESS, Justice.

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex.1992); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to vacate the portion of its order denying the relator’s assertions of privilege, and to either sustain the relator’s assertions of privilege or to conduct an in camera review of the documents tendered by the relator. The trial court denied the relator’s assertions of attorney-client or work product privilege on approximately 530 documents, and ordered 76 other documents to be submitted for in camera inspection. After reviewing the petition and record, we conclude that the relator has not shown a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law.

Our April 29, 2003, order, which stayed the trial court’s order to produce the documents, is lifted.

The petition for writ of mandamus, filed April 29, 2003, is DENIED.

McKEITHEN, filed a dissenting opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

DON BURGESS, Justice.

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex.1992); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to vacate the portion of its order denying the relator’s assertions of privilege, and to either sustain the relator’s assertions of privilege or to conduct an in camera review of the documents tendered by the relator. The trial court denied the relator’s assertions of attorney-client or work product privilege on approximately 530 documents, and ordered 76 other documents to be submitted for in camera inspection. After reviewing the petition and record, we conclude that the relator has not shown a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law.

Our April 29, 2003, order, which stayed the trial court’s order to produce the documents, is lifted.

The petition for writ of mandamus, filed April 29, 2003, is DENIED.

McKEITHEN, filed a dissenting opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.W.3d 677, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4473, 2003 WL 21210460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ei-dupont-de-nemours-and-company-texapp-2003.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack