Opinion ID: 2363701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Standard for Relief

Text: As we turn to the specifics of the propriety of the discovery order, [t]he burden of showing a right to the relief sought is on the petitioner. Unless the respondent's legal duty is clear, the writ should not issue. Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood v. Kline, 287 Kan. 372, 410, 197 P.3d 370 (2008). `Whether mandamus lies is dependent upon an interpretation of the applicable procedural and substantive statutes, over which this court has unlimited review.' [Citations omitted.] State ex rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 285 Kan. 438, 443, 172 P.3d 1154 (2007). In attempting to establish its right to relief, KaMMCO argues that Allen failed to establish that the information she seeks is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and the district court did not comply with the procedures enunciated in Berst, 232 Kan. 180, 653 P.2d 107, and subsequent cases dealing with discovery served on third parties.