in Re Theodore Putman and Litchfield Cavo, LLP

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 8, 2022
• Docket: 09-22-00358-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00358-CV __________________

IN RE THEODORE PUTMAN AND LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B-208,118 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relators Theodore Putman and Litchfield

Cavo, LLP contend the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered an additional

deposition of Putman. Relators also argue the trial court abused its discretion by

failing to consider lesser sanctions, such as ordering a second deposition limited to

certain questions.

We may grant mandamus relief to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion

when an appeal is an inadequate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d

1 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a

trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for

guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am.,

494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). We determine the adequacy of

an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the

detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig.

proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

After considering the petition, the mandamus record, the response, the

transcript of the hearing, and balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the

detriments, we conclude that Relators have not established that the trial court’s

rulings constitute an abuse of discretion from which there is no adequate remedy by

appeal. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 18, 2022 Opinion Delivered December 8, 2022

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