Deny and Opinion filed August 2, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00745-CV
IN RE VENKY VENKATRAMAN, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-03588
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein
Opinion by Justice Myers
Before the Court is relator’s August 1, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the trial court’s orders entered on or about July 8, 2022 and dated July
7, 2022, denying several of relator’s motions.1 Relator contends the trial court
denied relator due process by entering the orders without conducting a hearing on
1
Relator challenges the trial court’s orders denying relator’s Amended Motion to Compel
Depositions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm that Stephen D.
Skinner formed an Attorney-Client Relationship with Witnesses Sakshi Venkatraman and Smrithi
Venkatraman, Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of
Defendant Sergio Flores and Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s
Amended Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition and Motion for Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery;
and Amended Motion for Continuance.
Page 1 of 2
the merits, and the orders were entered after relator had given notice of and filed a
motion to recuse.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re
Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude relator has
failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny
the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
220745f.p05 /s/ Lana Myers
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
Page 2 of 2