Summary
denying mandamus relief from an order compelling deposition of insurer's corporate representative because the insurer failed to show entitlement to relief
Summary of this case from In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00264-CV
06-06-2017
IN RE SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
By petition for writ of mandamus, Safeco Insurance Company of America seeks to vacate the trial court's April 12, 2017 order granting a motion to compel the deposition of its corporate representative. This Court requested and received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, Marvin Bryant. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when the 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); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). 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 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)) (orig. proceeding). For the purposes of this case, 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 Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a); id. R. 192.4; see also In re Luna, No. 13-16-00467-CV, 2016 WL 6576879, at **6-7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 7, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Garcia, No. 04-07-00173-CV, 2007 WL 1481897, at **2-3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio May 23, 2007, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice Delivered and filed the 6th day of June, 2017.