Opinion issued November 24, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00577-CV
———————————
IN RE DR. SANJAY KHANDUJA, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR
WITH WILL ANNEXED IN THE ESTATE OF DR. R.K. DHINGRA A/K/A
RAKESH K. DHINGRA, DECEASED, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Dr. Sanjay Khanduja, Independent Administrator with Will Annexed
in the Estate of Dr. R.K. Dhingra, also known as Rakesh K. Dhingra, Deceased, has
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order denying
his motion for leave to designate expert witnessse and inspect property after the
expiration of the expert designation deadline set by the trial court.
We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.1
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited
circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). In the
case of a challenge to a decision within the trial court’s discretion, mandamus will
only issue where relator establishes that “the trial court failed to reach the only
reasonable conclusion.” In re Memorial Hermann Hosp. Sys., 464 S.W.3d 686, 698
(Tex. 2015). Discovery matters are generally within the trial court’s sound
discretion, but “mandamus will issue to correct a discovery order if the order
constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal.”
See In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998).
Relator has not demonstrated that the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion by denying relator’s motion for leave to designate expert witnesses and
inspect property after the expiration of the expert designation deadline set by the trial
court. See Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Tex. 1989) (“The
scope of discovery and the admission of evidence is principally within the discretion
of the trial court.”).
1
The underlying case is Estate of Dr. R.K. Dhingra, a/k/a Rakesh Kumar Dhingra,
Deceased v. David Scheffler, Individually, the 2525 Brothers, L.P. d/b/a Venture
Holdings, Inc., and Venture REO Services, L.P., Cause No. 396745-403, in Probate
Court No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jerry Simoneaux presiding.
2
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss
3