in Re Calhoun Port Authority ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00406-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE CALHOUN PORT AUTHORITY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1
On July 25, 2018, relator Calhoun Port Authority filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the above cause. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to
compel the trial court to vacate its July 23, 2018 orders granting discovery and to grant
its motion for protective order. Relator’s motion for protective order requested protection
from “any and all discovery sought” by the real party in interest, the Victoria Advocate
1 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).
Publishing Co. Relator has further filed an emergency motion for temporary relief and
stay through which it seeks to stay the July 23, 2018 discovery orders pending resolution
of this original proceeding.
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 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); 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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the
relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and the
emergency motion for temporary relief and stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
26th day of July, 2018.
2