In Re Eric Reyna v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00465-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ERIC REYNA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Eric Reyna contends that the trial court

abused its discretion by: (1) disregarding our directives in a previous memorandum

opinion regarding the scope of discovery in this case; (2) severely restricting discovery;

and (3) denying discovery that is “necessary for a fair adjudication of [relator’s] claims.”

See generally In re Reyna, No. 13-24-00158-CV, 2024 WL 3943451, at *1–8 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 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 trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is “so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” In re K & L Auto

Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839) (cleaned up); see In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tex.

2017) (orig. proceeding). “If a discovery order vitiates or severely compromises a party’s

ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial, an appeal is not an adequate remedy.”

In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam).

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

the response filed by real party in interest McCoy Corporation d/b/a McCoy’s Building

Supply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to

obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See

2 TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 16th day of October, 2024.