in Re Atkins Bros. Equipment Co., Inc. and Rickey Joe Hooper ( 2020 )

DENY and Opinion Filed April 7, 2020
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00178-CV
IN RE ATKINS BROS. EQUIPMENT CO., INC. AND RICKEY JOE
HOOPER, Relators
Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-01224-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Before the Court is relators’ petition for writ of mandamus in which they
contend the trial judge abused her discretion by granting real party in interests’
motions to quash relators’ subpoena duces tecum requesting documents from non-
parties, and relators’ deposition notice duces tecum, which sought the deposition of
and documents from non-parties. We have also received the response filed by real
party in interest, Eminent Medical Center, LLC.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show both that the trial
court clearly abused its discretion, and that relators have no adequate appellate
remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the mandamus record, we conclude
relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. Our denial does not
speak to the scope or applicability of In re North Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co.,
559 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2018), but rather, rests on the breadth of the challenged
requests included in the subpoena duces tecum, and the failure to comply with rule
176.5 regarding service of the deposition subpoena.
Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not
entitled to the relief sought).
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
200178F.P05
–2–