Court Opinion

ID: 9838628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 08:10:46.542338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.022892
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                 EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                      EL PASO, TEXAS

                                                   §

 IN RE                                             §                No. 08-23-00186-CV

 JUAN G. DURAN,                                    §          AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                      Relator.     §                  IN MANDAMUS

                                                   §

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Relator, Juan G. Duran, filed an original petition for writ of mandamus asserting the trial

court clearly abused its discretion in granting a motion to compel the production of documents that

allegedly exceeded the scope of discovery or were protected by the trade-secret privilege and that

he has no adequate remedy on appeal. The requests for 2016-2023 information pertained to eight

businesses allocated as Relator’s separate property while Relator and Real Party in Interest (RPI)

were married, pursuant to a 2019 partition agreement, which RPI alleges, in the present divorce

proceeding, is not enforceable. Moreover, RPI alleges Relator’s separate property is implicated in

the present case for the trial court to determine a just and right division of the community estate.

       We have reviewed Relator’s petition, the mandamus record, and RPI’s response, and

conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in granting the motion to compel
production of documents because Relator did not meet his burden to establish that the requests

exceeded the scope of discovery or that the information sought constitutes trade secrets. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (requiring a “clear and concise argument for the contentions made with

appropriate citations to authorities”); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.002(6)

(defining trade secrets); In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735 739 (Tex. 2003) (explaining six-factor test

courts apply to determine whether a trade secret exists (citing RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 757 cmt.

b. (1939); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 39 reporter’s n. cmt. d.)).

       Having found that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion, we deny the petition

for mandamus. In re Eagleridge Operating, LLC, 642 S.W.3d 518, 526 (Tex. 2022) (the trial court

must have clearly abused its discretion and relator must have no adequate remedy on appeal for

the appellate court to grant mandamus relief).

                                             LISA J. SOTO, Justice

September 5, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

                                                 2