NUMBER 13-17-00070-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras1, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam2
Relator, the Texas Department of Public Safety, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus with request for emergency relief in this cause on January 30, 2017. Through
this original proceeding, relator seeks to vacate two orders rendered on January 6, 2017
which (1) strike relator’s expert witness, and (2) deny relator’s motion to strike the medical
1
Justice Dori Contreras, formerly Dori Contreras Garza. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 45.101 et
seq. (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).
2 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).
experts retained by the real party in interest, Raquel Guzman. Through its request for
emergency relief, relator seeks to stay the jury trial of this matter which is set for February
6, 2017.
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 request
for emergency relief.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
31st day of January, 2017.
2