## NUMBERS 13 -22-00562-CV & 13 -22-00598-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION D/B/A CIRRUS AIRCRAFT

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva 1 By separate petitions for writ of mandamus which we have consolidated, relator Cirrrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft (Cirrus) contends that the trial court 2

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 Cirrus designated the respondent in these original proceedings as the Honorable Robert Vargas ; h owever, Judge Vargas ’ s term of office expired on December 31, 2022, and he was succeeded in office by the Honorable Todd Robinson. See id. R. 52.2. Accordingly, we abated and remanded these matters to allow Judge Robinson to reconsider the rulings at issue. See id. R. 7.2(b)

. After holding a hearing on these2 abused its discretion by requiring Cirrus to respond to overly broad and unduly burdensome discovery requests and by entering a “ sharing ” protective order. M andamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co. , 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adeq uate remedy on appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “ The relator bears the b urden of proving these two requirements. ” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 840. A discovery order that compels production beyond the rules of procedure is an abuse of discretio n for which mandamus is the proper remedy. In re Nat ’ l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Deere & Co. , 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson , 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam); see In re Shipman , 540 S.W.3d 562, 565 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Further the scope of a pr otectiv e order may be subject to review by mandamus. See, e.g., Garcia v. Peeples , 734 S.W.2d 343, 346

– 48 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition s for writ of

matters, Judge Robinson issued orders which were either identical to those orders issued previ ously or were marginally more expansive. We have received and reviewed supplemental records and briefing from the parties regarding the events on remand and the rulings at issue here

.3 mandamus , the record s and supplemental records , the response s filed by the real part ies in interest , and all supplemental briefing, is of the opinion that Cirrus has not met its burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. First, Cirrus ’ s contentions regarding the breadth and relevance of the dis covery at issue fail to acknowledge that the record contains disputed facts that directly concern the se matters. See In re Woodfill , 470 S.W.3d 473, 478 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). In fact, Cirrus failed to include some of the documents evidencing factual disputes within its own mandamus record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52. 7. Second, t he scope of the discovery ordered , which
encompasses the specific aircraft at issue and one other model of that aircraft , is appropriately restrained in terms of relevance. See In re Exmark Mfg. Co. , 299 S.W.3d 519, 525

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. dism ’d ])

. Third, Cirrus has not shown that the protective order, which contains provisions contemplating further court involvement and allowing additional protection for specified documents , fails to properly balance its proprietary needs with public policies regarding full and fair disclosure

. See Garcia , 734 S.W.2d at 346

– 48 ; see also In re Cont ’ l Gen. Tire, Inc. , 979 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding)

. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in these cases

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10. We deny the petitions for writ of mandamus and all relief sought there in.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 11th day of May , 202 3

.