In Re Jason L. Vallejo v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 16, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00268-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00268-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JASON L. VALLEJO

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

Relator Jason L. Vallejo filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial

court abused its discretion by compelling him to produce “substantive” spousal

communications which had not been requested, by compelling him to execute an

authorization, and by denying his motion to compel the production of an investigative

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). report regarding the vehicular accident underlying this case. We deny relief.

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).

“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 Kuraray Am., Inc.,

656 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Nat’l

Lloyds Ins., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). Similarly,

mandamus may be appropriate to remedy an order which erroneously denies discovery

that “goes ‘to the very heart’ of a party’s case and prevents it from ‘developing essential

elements’ of its claim or defense.” In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 256

(Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772

(Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding)); see Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843–44.

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

the response filed by Advanced Pumping, LLC; Advanced Pumping Concepts, LLC;

Brundage-Bone Concrete Pumping, Inc; and Capital Pumping, LP; the reply filed by

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

2 obtain relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.10 (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective

until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

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