In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-15-00201-CV
_________________
IN RE ALTO V. WATSON III
________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Alto V. Watson III (Watson or Relator), claims that the trial court
abused its discretion in ruling from the bench that Watson was not entitled to
depose Paul Chargois and Amy Delgado, Real Parties in Interest (Chargois,
Delgado, or Real Parties), about net worth until after Watson obtains a jury verdict
on liability and then also limiting that deposition to 45 minutes. On May 28, 2015,
Relator filed a Petition for Mandamus and a request for emergency relief to stop a
deposition of Chargois which Relator was scheduled to take that morning. This
court denied the request for emergency relief. Relator states that the trial court has
denied all pre-trial discovery on the issue of net worth. It is unclear from the
1
attachments Relator filed with his Petition whether or not the trial court denied
other pretrial discovery regarding net worth. Relator states in his Petition that the
defendant has agreed to produce a financial statement. But, no statement had been
produced at the time Relator filed his Petition. While the Petition for Mandamus
was pending, Chargois produced a financial statement to Relator, but Relator
contends in a supplemental filing with this Court that the financial statement is
inadequate. Relator has not presented his objection to the financial statement to the
trial court.
According to the record currently before us, the trial court previously
entered an order dated November 13, 2014, wherein it ruled upon various
objections to the Relator’s written discovery served on the Real Parties. Therein,
the trial court expressly states that Defendant Chargois is to produce a financial
statement to the Relator and the parties were to enter into a protective order
relating thereto. Thereafter, on April 7, 2015, the parties executed and the trial
court signed a Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order.
Mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court abuses its discretion and
there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839-40 (Tex. 1992). “An appellate remedy is ‘adequate’ when any benefits to
mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. When the benefits outweigh
2
the detriments, appellate courts must consider whether the appellate remedy is
adequate.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004).
Generally, a trial court should limit discovery methods to those which are more
convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive, or when the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4.
“Conducting mandamus review of all limitations placed on discovery would risk
unduly burdening the courts and result in delay in resolution of the dispute.” In re
Michael A. Kaplan, M.D., P.A., No. 09-08-075-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 1418,
*1 (Tex. App. Beaumont Feb. 25, 2008) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator has
a remedy by ordinary appeal.1 See id.
Under the circumstances, we conclude that the detriments to mandamus
review outweigh any benefits. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4. On this record, Relator
has not shown an abuse of discretion for which an appeal would be an inadequate
remedy. The request for emergency stay and the petition for writ of mandamus are
denied.
1
Because we dispose of this mandamus proceeding on the ground that
Relator has an adequate appellate remedy, and the parties’ pre-trial discovery
appears to be on-going, we express no opinion on whether the trial court abused its
discretion in its bench ruling.
3
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on June 12, 2015
Opinion Delivered June 17, 2015
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
4