NUMBER 13-17-00430-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STORM-WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICE, L.L.C.,

WS ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., AND JACK S. STORM

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1

Relators Storm-Williams Energy Service, L.L.C., WS Energy Services, L.L.C., and 

Jack S. Storm filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this cause seeking to compel the 

trial court to (1) vacate a March 20, 2017 order granting a motion for protection and 

sustaining objections to a subpoena duces tecum directed to non-party Rebecca Dennis; 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in 

any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do 

so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

and (2) grant relators’ motion for continuance of the trial set for October 12, 2017. We 

deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 

302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a 

clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus 

Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator 

bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 

S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (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); Ford 

Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). 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 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled 

to the relief sought. First, relators have not shown that the requested discovery goes to 

the heart of their case or that the trial court’s order otherwise vitiates or severely 

compromises their ability to present a claim or defense. See, e.g., In re Allied Chem. 

Corp., 227 S.W.3d 652, 658 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 

S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). We further note that the trial court has 

appointed a special master who has not yet had the opportunity to review the discovery 
3

matters at issue in this case. Second, a motion for continuance based on the grounds 

presented here, the alleged need for additional discovery and the potential absence of 

counsel, is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion. See Joe v. Two Thirty Nine 

Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 251 (stating that

a continuance may not be granted “except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or 

by consent of the parties, or by operation of law”); id. R. 252 (stating that an applicant for 

a continuance based on the need for additional discovery must meet certain 

requirements, including, inter alia, showing that the discovery is material and cannot be 

obtained from any other source), id. R. 253 (stating that the “absence of counsel will not 

be good cause” for a continuance unless it is “allowed in the discretion of the court, upon 

cause shown or upon matters within the knowledge or information of the judge to be 

stated on the record”). Moreover, according to the trial court’s oral ruling in this case, the 

trial court has indicated its willingness to reconsider continuing the trial date. Under these 

circumstances, relators have not shown that mandamus should issue. See Gen. Motors 

Corp. v. Gayle, 951 S.W.2d 469, 477 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we 

DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the

4th day of August, 2017.