Court Opinion

ID: 9811646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:48.914538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:48.723296
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION1
DON BURGESS, Justice.
Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex.1992); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to vacate the portion of its order denying the relator’s assertions of privilege, and to either sustain the relator’s assertions of privilege or to conduct an in camera review of the documents tendered by the relator. The trial court denied the relator’s assertions of attorney-client or work product privilege on approximately 530 documents, and ordered 76 other documents to be submitted for in camera inspection. After reviewing the petition and record, we conclude that the relator has not shown a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law.
Our April 29, 2003, order, which stayed the trial court’s order to produce the documents, is lifted.
The petition for writ of mandamus, filed April 29, 2003, is DENIED.
McKEITHEN, filed a dissenting opinion.

. Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.