MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00277-CV
IN RE MEDLAW SERVICES, LLC
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 27, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On April 14, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining the probate
court abused its discretion in ordering the production of the software owned by relator because it
contains trade secret information. 2 In order for relator to be entitled to mandamus relief, it must
establish the trial court clearly abused its discretion and relator has no adequate remedy at law.
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Texas Rule of Evidence 507 provides that “[a] person has a privilege, which may be
claimed by the person or the person’s agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to prevent
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-PC-2661, styled In the Estate of Leo Block, pending in the Probate
Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer presiding.
2
On April 1, 2011, the probate court entered an order requiring relator to produce the software and ordered that a
protective order be entered with regard to the trade secret information.
04-11-00277-CV
other persons from disclosing a trade secret owned by the person, if the allowance of the
privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.” TEX. R. EVID. 507. The
Supreme Court in In re Continental outlined how Rule 507 should be applied as follows:
First, the party resisting discovery must establish that the
information is a trade secret. The burden then shifts to the
requesting party to establish that the information is necessary for a
fair adjudication of its claims. If the requesting party meets this
burden, the trial court should ordinarily compel disclosure of the
information, subject to an appropriate protective order. In each
circumstance, the trial court must weigh the degree of the
requesting party’s need for the information with the potential harm
of disclosure to the resisting party.
See In re Cont’l Gen. Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Tex. 1998).
Relator complains the software sought to be produced contains trade secret information,
and real party in interest Erma Block failed to establish the information is necessary for a fair
adjudication of her claim or defense. However, relator presents no further argument as to how
Block failed to meet her burden, and instead only provides an analysis as to why the information
should be considered a trade secret.
The record reflects that Block argued to the trial court that production of the software is
necessary because Block does not believe the software exists and instead claims that MedLaw
Services, LLC is a sham and “never really did anything.” Block sought in her motion to compel
various documents from MedLaw, including the software, on the basis that if MedLaw is
actually a business then it should have documents supporting its operations. Relator provides no
specific argument as to why Block’s argument was not sufficient to meet her burden or why the
software is not necessary for a fair adjudication of Block’s claims. We must assume from the
probate court’s order that the court impliedly found Block met her burden to show that the
information is necessary for a fair adjudication of her claims. See In re Cont’l, 979 S.W.2d at
-2-
04-11-00277-CV
613. Without any argument as to why the probate court erred in impliedly making the finding
that Block met her burden, we cannot conclude the probate court clearly abused its discretion in
compelling the production of the software with an appropriate protective order. Accordingly, the
petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
-3-