Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 

2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00780-CV

____________

IN RE LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-22372

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This discovery mandamus arises from a suit for contractual and extra-contractual 

damages from Hurricane Ike claims on five apartment complexes. The apartment 

complex owners, JAW The Lake, L.L.C., JAW Timberwalk, L.L.C., JAW Scarsdale Park, 

L.L.C., JAW Boardwalk of Baytown, L.L.C., and JAW Chateau Creole, L.L.C, the real 

parties in interest, filed separate suits against relator, Lexington Insurance Company, 

complaining of its handling of the claims, and the suits were consolidated in the underlying 

action. 
2

On September 8, 2011, relator filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus in 

this court. 1 See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Relator asked this court to order the 

Honorable Jaclanel McFarland, presiding Judge of the 133rd District Court of Harris 

County, Texas, to set aside her order signed August 16, 2011, reconsidering her prior order 

and granting the real parties in interest’s motion to compel production of discovery. 

Relator complains that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering unduly burdensome 

production of irrelevant documents in response to overbroad requests. Relator also asserts 

that some documents subject to the court’s order are privileged. 

Relator also filed an emergency motion asking that we stay the trial court’s order

pending our review of its petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a). On September 9, 2011, 

this court granted relator’s motion and requested a response from the real parties in interest, 

which has now been filed. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate 

remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). 

A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to 

amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the 

law correctly. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005). 

Generally, the scope of discovery is within the trial court's discretion; however, the 

trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits. See In re CSX 

Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003). A discovery order that compels overly broad 

discovery well outside the bounds of proper discovery is an abuse of discretion for which 

mandamus may issue. In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820–21 (Tex. 2009). The 

party resisting discovery bears the ―heavy burden‖ of establishing an abuse of discretion 

 

1

 Relator’s first petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed as moot after the trial court granted relator’s 

motion to reconsider and vacated its order signed June 13, 2011. See In re Lexington Insurance Company, 

No. 14-11-00681-CV, 2011 WL 3925567 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 8, 2011, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.).
3

and inadequate appellate remedy. In re CSX, 124 S.W.3d at 151. The party making the 

objection must present any evidence necessary to support the objection. See Tex. R. Civ. 

P. 193.4(a); In re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2002).

Relator has not established that it is entitled to extraordinary relief. Accordingly, 

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. This court’s September 9, 2011, stay 

order is lifted. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.