DENIED; Opinion Filed November 13, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01401-CV

IN RE JOHN B. LOWERY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-08-15458

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Myers

Opinion by Justice Myers

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus contending that the trial court abused its 

discretion in rendering a default judgment against him, in ordering relator to produce documents 

responsive to post-judgment discovery requests relator contends were overly broad, and in 

holding relator in contempt when he failed to comply with the order to produce documents. The 

facts and issues are well-known to the parties so we do not recount them here.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances. CSR Ltd. 

v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is appropriate “only to 

correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no 

other adequate remedy by law.” Link, 925 S.W.2d at 596. Relator has an adequate remedy via 

bill of review for his challenges to the entry of the default judgment. “Mandamus is not an 

appropriate means of reviewing a final default judgment rendered while the trial court had 

jurisdiction to do so.” In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). 
–2–

Relator has not established his right to mandamus relief with respect to his discovery 

complaints. “Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable 

procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with 

a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by 

the parties, see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k), this Court strictly enforces the authentication 

requirements of rule 52 of the rules of appellate procedure to ensure the integrity of the 

mandamus record. See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. 

proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant 

had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the 

original.”). Here, because the documents attached in support of the petition for writ of 

mandamus are not sworn or certified copies, the mandamus record does not satisfy the 

authentication requirements of rule 52. 

In addition, although relator contends he presented evidence in support of his opposition 

to the motion to compel and in opposition to the motion for contempt, he has not included 

transcripts of those hearings. In cases in which the trial court has received evidence at the 

hearing giving rise to a mandamus challenge, as in this case, the party seeking mandamus has an 

obligation to provide transcripts of any relevant evidentiary hearings. TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(2). In the absence of a transcript, we must presume that there was evidence to support 

the court's order. See Ex parte Savelle, 398 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1966) (orig. proceeding); Ex 

parte Linder, 783 S.W.2d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, orig. proceeding). We DENY the 

petition.

141401F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE