Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 

4, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00160-CV

IN RE ANGLETON SAND AND ROBERT PETERSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court No. 57875

M E M OR A N DU M OP I N I ON

Relators Angleton Sand and Robert Peterson filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 

52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Terri Holder, 

presiding judge of the 149th District Court in Brazoria County, to set aside her 

order granting the motion to compel discovery and for sanctions filed by the real 

party in interest, Roger Kroschel, III.
2

Robert Peterson and Roger Kroschel, III formed Angleton Sand, referred to 

as a “single purpose joint venture,” to mine and sell sand. In September 2009, 

Peterson asserts that he learned that Kroschel converted Angleton Sand’s profits 

for his own use. The partnership ended, and Peterson sued Kroschel.

During the operation of the company, it had purchased a John Deere tractor 

with an attached scraper. The mandamus record indicates that the use of the tractor 

may have been billed by Terra Dragline, another company owned by Peterson, and 

the funds received used to pay the note for the tractor’s purchase, for which 

Peterson is obligated. This discovery dispute results from Kroschel’s efforts to 

obtain documentation concerning the revenues produced by the use of the 

tractor/scraper when it is leased out to others. Kroschel’s second request for 

production, served August 1, 2012, includes a request for “[a]ny and all documents 

evidencing any payments made to you since January 1, 2009 that are related to 

Angleton Sand.” According to the request, “you” includes Peterson, Terra 

Dragline, Angleton Sand Company, and its agents. 

The court ordered production of any bills and records of payment for use of 

the tractor so that an accounting can be made.1In addition, the trial court granted 

sanctions against relators in the amount of $2,500. This proceeding followed.

 

1

Specifically, the court granted the motion to compel, ordering production of the following:

1. Any and all documents evidencing payments made to Robert “Butch” Peterson, 

Individually and as the Representative of Terra Dragline and the Sole Survivor of 

Angleton Sand, a Joint Venture since January 1, 2009 that are related to Angleton 

Sand. 

2. Any and all documents evidencing payments made to Robert “Butch” Peterson,

Individually and as the Representative of Terra Dragline and the Sole Survivor of 

Angleton Sand, a Joint Venture since January 1, 2009 for the use of the 9520 

tractor and/or 3100 scraper.
3

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). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by 

balancing the benefits of mandamus review against its detriments. Id. at 136. In 

evaluating benefits and detriments, we consider whether mandamus will preserve 

important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. Id.

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). When reviewing the trial court’s decision for an 

abuse of discretion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court 

with respect to the resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial 

court’s discretion. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992).

Relators raise three issues. In issues two and three, relators challenge the 

award of attorney’s fees as costs. Relators have a remedy by appeal for the

attorney’s fees awarded to Kroschel as a sanction for discovery abuse. See Tex. R. 

Civ. P. 215.3 (providing that an order awarding costs after finding discovery abuse 

is “subject to review on appeal from the final judgment.”); see also Street v. 

Second Ct. of Appeals, 715 S.W.2d 638, 639-40 (Tex. 1986). The sanction amount 

is not so large that it might preclude relators’ ability to proceed with the litigation. 

See Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922, 929 (Tex. 1991) (holding that appeal is 

not an adequate remedy for monetary sanctions for discovery abuse ordered to be 

paid before final judgment if the party’s continuation of the litigation is 

threatened). Relators have an adequate remedy from the award of sanctions by 

appeal after final judgment. Accordingly, we overrule issues two and three.
4

In their first issue, relators assert that the trial court abused its discretion by 

compelling production because the discovery requests are overbroad. Our record 

contains no objections to discovery asserting overbreadth, or any other ground. 

Relators also contend that the court’s order requires production beyond what was 

requested. We disagree. The trial court’s order does not exceed the information 

sought in Kroschel’s requests for production. 

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.2 specifically requires objections to 

written discovery to be in writing and to provide the specific legal or factual basis 

for the objection. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). A party seeking to exclude any matter 

from discovery must assert any objection to a request for production in writing 

within its response. Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.2(b); Bielamowicz v. Cedar Hill I.S.D., 136 

S.W.3d 718, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied).

Although the scope of discovery is broad, requests must be reasonably 

tailored to include only relevant matters. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152

(Tex. 2003). Overbroad requests for irrelevant information are improper. Id. at 

153. The requirement for a written objection applies to a complaint that the subject 

discovery is overbroad, and a party who fails to comply waives the objection. See 

In re HEB Grocery Co., L.P., 375 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding). Because no written objections are included in our 

record, relators waived this complaint.

Moreover, the requests are not overbroad. They are specifically related to the 

main issue in the case, and the requests are limited to the time period at issue.

Relators have not established that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling 

the discovery at issue. We overrule relators’ first issue.
5

Relators have not established their entitlement to extraordinary relief. 

Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.