NO. 07 -04- 00405 -CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D OCTOBER 18, 2004

____________

____________

______ IN RE DAVI D L. JONES A ND ALI CE REDEK ER, RE LATORS

____________

____________

_________ Before QUI NN and REAVI S and CAMPBEL L, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINI ON ON PET IT ION FO R WRIT OFMANDA MUS The Cour t sua s ponte wit hdraws its o pinion of O ctober 11, 20 04, and in l ieu t hereof substi tutes thi s opini on. Relators Davi d Lee Jones and AliceRedeker seek a wri t of ma ndamus request ing t hat we order the Honor able Fel ix Kl ein, Judge of th e 154th Dist rict Cou rt of La mb Co un ty, to vacate hi s order of Ap ril 23, 200 4, denying the ir motion to comp el disco very. In response, among ot her th ings, real party in i nteres t, W ill iam B. Jones, Jr. contends that relators have not dem onstra te d that the de nial of th eir mot ion to compel d iscove ry consti tuted a cle ar abuse of discreti on by t he trial court. For the reasons set for

th, we deny t he requested reli ef. Alt hough the disc overy rules enco urage trial courts to limit disco very to avoid undu e burdensin produ ction, rea l party had the b urden in the trial cou rt to prod uce so me evidenc e to supporthis request f

or protecti on. I n re Al ford Chev rolet-Geo, 99 7 S .W .2d 173, 181 (Tex.

### 2

1999). Here, relators are enti tled to manda mus relief “on ly to correct a tria l court’s clear abuse of discre tion when no ade quate re medy at law exis ts.” In Re Al ford Che vrolet

-Geo, 997 S. W .2d at176. In our

revi ew, regardi ng fact ual mat ters, as an appe llate court we may not su bsti tute our judgment

for t hat of

the t rial court . Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 83 7-39 (T ex. 1992 ); In re Energ as Co ., 63 S.W.3d 50, 51 (Tex. App.- -Amari llo 2001, o rig. proceedi ng). Therefore, in determi ning whet her mandamus s hould i ssue, we must focus on the re cord t hat was before the tri al court and decide w hether the deci sion was not onl y arbi trary but also a moun ted to a clear and preju dici al err

or of law. In re Bri stol-Meyers Squibb Co., 975 S. W .2d 601, 605 (Tex. 1998). An original p rocee ding filed in thi s Court mustcomply wit h the r

equire ments of

Rule 52 of t h e Texa s Rule s of App ellate Pro cedu re. Althoug h a repo rter’s rec ord of th e hear ing is incl uded, relators’ f

act statement

in t heir p etit ion i s not su pporte d by a veri fied affidavit

as requir ed by Rule 52 .3 of the T exas R ules ofAppella te Proce dure. C onse quen tly, relator’s peti tion for w rit

of mandamus is deni ed. Don H. Rea vis Just ice Campbell , J. , concurring.

### 3 NO. 07 -04- 0405- CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D OCTOBER 18, 2004

____________

____________

______ IN RE DAVI D L. JONES A ND ALI CE REDEK ER, RE LATORS

____________

____________

_________ Before QUI NN and REAVI S and CAMPBEL L, JJ. CONCURRING OP INI ON I concur i n the court ’s deni al of relators’ p etit ion. In my opini on, re lato rs have not demonstrated the trial court’s order re flects a clear abuse of i ts discreti on based on the record pres ented. In re Alf

ord Chevrol

et-Geo , 997 S.W .2d 175 (Tex. 19 99); Walker v. Packer, 82 7 S.W .2d 833 (Tex. 19 92).
Jame s T. Ca mpbe ll Jus tice