TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00640-CV
In re Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Asplundh Tree Expert Co. filed a motion for temporary relief and a petition
for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order compelling Asplundh to provide certain
discovery materials, and on October 4, 2013, we granted temporary relief, staying the order until
we could consider the merits of the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10. Having reviewed
Asplundh’s petition, the real parties in interest’s response, Asplundh’s reply, and the various
appendices provided, we deny Asplundh’s request for relief.
Asplundh complains that the materials it was ordered to produce—information related
to employees’ salaries and bonuses and financial factors that guide Asplundh in determining where
and when to work—were trade secrets and that the order is overbroad. However, Asplundh has the
burden of establishing that it is entitled to extraordinary relief. See In re ADM Investor Servs., Inc.,
304 S.W.3d 371, 373-74 (Tex. 2010); Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305
(Tex. 1994). Further, Asplundh was required to establish in the trial court that what it sought to
conceal were in fact trade secrets. See In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735, 737 (Tex. 2003) (party asserting
trade secret privilege “has the burden of proving that the discovery information sought qualifies
as a trade secret”). Asplundh did not present evidence at the hearing and has not carried its burden
of showing that it was entitled to trade-secret protection, that the order is overbroad, or that the
trial court abused its discretion in entering the order. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus and
dissolve our stay dated October 4, 2013.
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin
Filed: November 20, 2013
2