OPINION
GAMMAGE, Justice.In this mandamus proceeding, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in a products liability action by denying Relators discovery of documents asserted to contain alternative design information. Because at least some of the documents sought are of a type indistinguishable from those for which production was ordered in Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1984, orig. proceeding), we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.
In December 1984, Luis Chapa was injured when a Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle discharged during loading. A products liability action ensued, in which Relators claimed that the injuries were attributable to design defects in the rifle’s fire control system.
Remington filed a motion for protective order and tendered a supporting affidavit from its Technical Manager, sealed with the documents for in camera inspection.1 The trial court determined that disclosure of this information was not mandated since these documents “contain only research ideas and concepts and do not address alternative designs for the Model 700 or any other past or existing product.”2 From *668our consideration of applicable law and in camera review, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion at least as to some of these documents.
The question presented today is whether our ruling in Jambóle can be avoided by placing documents in a file marked “NBAR.” Discovery is designed “to allow the litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial.” Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex.1990, orig. proceeding). A review of the documents submitted in camera to this court makes evident that some of the documents contained in the NBAR file concern investigation into design improvements for the Model 700, the very model that alleged to have injured Luis Chapa. Moreover, as one court has recently concluded in reviewing what is apparently the same information, “A few documents are copies of magazine articles, already part of the public domain.” Hartman v. Remington Arms Co., 143 F.R.D. 673 (W.D.Mo.1992).
The trial court’s “clear failure ... to analyze or apply the law correctly” constitutes an abuse of discretion and is subject to correction by extraordinary writ. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992, orig. proceeding). Further, because denial of these discovery materials severely vitiates Relators’ ability to present a viable claim at trial, remedy by appeal is inadequate. Id. at 843.
We are confident that Judge Garcia, after vacating his order of July 23, 1990, will provide to Relators all of the in camera documents that this court has identified for immediate release and, as to the remainder, will perform a careful and thorough review, possibly with the assistance of an independent special master with firearms expertise, and provide to the Relators all documents of a similar nature. The writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court does not so vacate its order.
DOGGETT, J., concurs with opinion. HECHT, J., dissents with opinion in which PHILLIPS, C.J., and GONZALEZ and CORNYN, JJ., joined.. See Remington v. Canales, 837 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.1992, orig. proceeding).
. In our previous unpublished order of June 27, 1990, concerning another aspect of the trial court’s ruling on this matter, we advised it to *668See Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1984) (trial court’s denial of discovery of alternative designs utilized in non-identical products constitutes an abuse of discretion).