In Re Patrick Hughey v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00194-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00194-CV __________________

IN RE PATRICK HUGHEY

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 6 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-05-08027 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Patrick Hughey filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion

for temporary relief. Hughey contends the trial court abused its discretion: (1) by

striking and precluding the use of a transcription of a deposition; (2) by sanctioning

Hughey beyond the remedy found in Rule 203.6(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure; and (3) by not enforcing the previous agreement of the Real Party in

Interest, Reddico Construction Co., Inc., consenting to the use of Skribe in a

deposition. Hughey contends he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal because review

of a discovery order would be “difficult if not impossible to review” after the trial

1 and the trial court “eviscerated Hughey’s procedural right to litigate the case in an

effective and cost-conscious manner.” He argues Chapter 154 of the Civil Practice

and Remedies Code does not apply to non-stenographic depositions or written

transcriptions thereof and that the trial court precluded “the use of the video-recorded

deposition at all.”

The order signed by the trial court on April 1, 2025, stated:

It is therefore ORDERED that the relief requested in the Motions is granted. It is further ORDERED that the depositions set for March 27, 2025 and March 28, 2025 are quashed. It is further ORDERED that the transcription of the January 29, 2025 testimony prepared by use of Skribe.ai is struck and may not be used.

Hughey reads too much into the trial court’s order. The trial court struck the

written transcription that was prepared by means other than by a certified court

reporter. The trial court did not exclude the video deposition from evidence or

preclude Hughey from playing the video deposition to the jury. Moreover, the trial

court issued the order two months before trial, leaving Hughey sufficient time to

engage a certified court reporter to transcribe the video deposition.

We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits

of mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending

mandamus relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from

impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig.

proceeding). Under these circumstances, that balance weighs against mandamus

2 review. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary

relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 27, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 29, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.