in Re the State of Texas and the Texas a & M University System

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00216-CV ____________________ IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION The State of Texas and the Texas A & M University System seek mandamus review of the denial of a motion to compel production of documents. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Relators are condemnees in an eminent domain proceeding filed by Montgomery County in connection with a highway construction project that includes widening FM 1488 through the Jones State Forest. Relators seek to compel the trial court to require the County to produce all appraisal reports prepared by two real estate appraisers for any properties within 1,000 feet of FM 1488 and within five miles of Relators' property. Relators contend that unless the discovery is compelled, their ability to make a convincing presentation of their claims and defenses would be severely compromised because they will be unable to adequately cross-examine the expert witnesses on the issues of value and damages. In response, Montgomery County argues the thirty-nine properties at issue are not comparable and the reports are not necessary to Relators' effective cross-examination of the County's witnesses. Mandamus relief is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relators have no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against its detriments. Id. at 136. We consider whether mandamus review of a significant ruling is "essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss," to provide "helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive" on appeal, or to "spare private parties and the public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings." Id. The burden of reviewing an incidental trial court ruling may under the circumstances of a case outweigh the benefit of mandamus review of discovery matters. See generally In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008); In re Allied Chem. Corp., 227 S.W.3d 652, 658 (Tex. 2007) ("[W]e generally do not review orders refusing to compel discovery."). The relators have not shown that the benefits of a mandamus review in this case outweigh the detriments of pre-trial review of the trial court's ruling on the relators' motion to compel. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Opinion Delivered June 11, 2009 Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.