1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00201-CV

_________________

IN RE ALTO V. WATSON III

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Alto V. Watson III (Watson or Relator), claims that the trial court 

abused its discretion in ruling from the bench that Watson was not entitled to 

depose Paul Chargois and Amy Delgado, Real Parties in Interest (Chargois, 

Delgado, or Real Parties), about net worth until after Watson obtains a jury verdict 

on liability and then also limiting that deposition to 45 minutes. On May 28, 2015, 

Relator filed a Petition for Mandamus and a request for emergency relief to stop a 

deposition of Chargois which Relator was scheduled to take that morning. This 

court denied the request for emergency relief. Relator states that the trial court has 

denied all pre-trial discovery on the issue of net worth. It is unclear from the 
2

attachments Relator filed with his Petition whether or not the trial court denied 

other pretrial discovery regarding net worth. Relator states in his Petition that the 

defendant has agreed to produce a financial statement. But, no statement had been 

produced at the time Relator filed his Petition. While the Petition for Mandamus 

was pending, Chargois produced a financial statement to Relator, but Relator 

contends in a supplemental filing with this Court that the financial statement is 

inadequate. Relator has not presented his objection to the financial statement to the 

trial court.

According to the record currently before us, the trial court previously 

entered an order dated November 13, 2014, wherein it ruled upon various 

objections to the Relator’s written discovery served on the Real Parties. Therein, 

the trial court expressly states that Defendant Chargois is to produce a financial 

statement to the Relator and the parties were to enter into a protective order 

relating thereto. Thereafter, on April 7, 2015, the parties executed and the trial 

court signed a Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order.

Mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court abuses its discretion and 

there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839-40 (Tex. 1992). “An appellate remedy is ‘adequate’ when any benefits to 

mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. When the benefits outweigh 
3

the detriments, appellate courts must consider whether the appellate remedy is 

adequate.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004).

Generally, a trial court should limit discovery methods to those which are more 

convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive, or when the burden or expense of 

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4. 

“Conducting mandamus review of all limitations placed on discovery would risk 

unduly burdening the courts and result in delay in resolution of the dispute.” In re 

Michael A. Kaplan, M.D., P.A., No. 09-08-075-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 1418, 

*1 (Tex. App. Beaumont Feb. 25, 2008) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator has 

a remedy by ordinary appeal.1 See id. 

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the detriments to mandamus 

review outweigh any benefits. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4. On this record, Relator 

has not shown an abuse of discretion for which an appeal would be an inadequate 

remedy. The request for emergency stay and the petition for writ of mandamus are 

denied.

 1

Because we dispose of this mandamus proceeding on the ground that 

Relator has an adequate appellate remedy, and the parties’ pre-trial discovery 

appears to be on-going, we express no opinion on whether the trial court abused its 

discretion in its bench ruling.
4

PETITION DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 12, 2015

Opinion Delivered June 17, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.