in Re: Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company and Angela Sue Harrington

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 23, 2022
• Docket: 05-21-01029-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENY and Opinion Filed June 23, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-01029-CV

IN RE LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANGELA SUE HARRINGTON, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-02017-2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Osborne In this original proceeding, relators Liberty County Mutual Insurance

Company (Liberty) and Angela Sue Harrington petition this Court for a writ of

mandamus ordering respondent to vacate and set aside her order dated November 3,

2021, denying relators’ motion to quash the oral deposition of Liberty’s corporate

representative and to grant relators’ motion to quash. We requested a response from

respondent and real party in interest, but none was filed.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relators’ petition and the record, we conclude that

relators have failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion.1 See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). We also lift the stay issued by our order dated December 7, 2021.

211029f.p05 /Leslie Osborne// LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE

1 Additionally, we note that the verification of the record indicates that pages 1MR:61–3MR:1711 of the record were part of relators’ supplemental motion as that motion was filed in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). After reviewing the record, however, these pages do not appear to have been filed with the supplemental motion as an exhibit thereto. See Constant v. Gillespie, No. 05-20-00734-CV, 2022 WL 1564555, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). –2–