Full text
in Re Theodore Putman and Litchfield Cavo, LLP
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00358-CV __________________
IN RE THEODORE PUTMAN AND LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B-208,118 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relators Theodore Putman and Litchfield Cavo, LLP contend the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered an additional deposition of Putman. Relators also argue the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider lesser sanctions, such as ordering a second deposition limited to certain questions.
We may grant mandamus relief to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion when an appeal is an inadequate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d *2 833, 839-40 (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). 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 at 136.
After considering the petition, the mandamus record, the response, the transcript of the hearing, and balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments, we conclude that Relators have not established that the trial court’s rulings constitute an abuse of discretion from which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on November 18, 2022 Opinion Delivered December 8, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.