in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle, 12-15-00216-CV

Thomas and Ellen Lytle sued to quiet title and for damages, alleging a fraudulent conveyance of an easement and that David Petruska came onto their property and threatened Thomas Lytle with an assault rifle.
David Petruska moved to stay all civil proceedings, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because of a related criminal indictment alleging he threatened Lytle with a firearm.
The trial court granted a six-month stay (or until the criminal case concluded) and allowed David to seek further stays if the criminal case remained unresolved, effectively suspending the civil case and discovery.
The Lytles filed a mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals challenging the trial court’s blanket stay and denial of discovery.
The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a blanket stay based on an asserted Fifth Amendment privilege not tied to particular questions or discovery requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lytle)	Defendant's Argument (Petruska)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in staying the entire civil case	The stay deprived them of access to courts and was unjustified	Forcing Petruska to answer civil discovery would compel self-incrimination; stay protects his Fifth Amendment rights	Court held the stay was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated
Whether Petruska properly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege	Lytle: invocation was blanket and unsupported because no specific questions were propounded	Petruska: he need not answer civil discovery while criminal exposure exists	Court held Petruska made an improper blanket assertion; privilege must be asserted question-by-question and bona fides considered
Whether contradictory factual statements undermined the stay request	Lytle pointed to Petruska’s affidavit saying the rifle incident was unrelated to the easement, contradicting claim of overlap	Petruska argued civil and criminal matters overlap substantially	Court found the affidavit contradicted the claimed overlap and supported conclusion the privilege was invoked to delay discovery
Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy	Lytle: indefinite suspension left no adequate appellate remedy	Petruska: argued other standards or special circumstances may apply	Court held mandamus appropriate because stay effectively suspended the cause and denied adequate appeal remedy

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (orig. proceeding) (mandamus standard: correct clear abuse of discretion or violation of duty)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (orig. proceeding) (trial court has no discretion in determining or misapplying the law)
In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 192 S.W.3d 897 (orig. proceeding) (stay decisions are discretionary)
In re R.R., 26 S.W.3d 569 (orig. proceeding) (trial court abused discretion by blanket denial of discovery; must weigh requests individually)
In re Immobiliere Jeuness Establissement, 422 S.W.3d 909 (orig. proceeding) (mandamus appropriate where plaintiff is effectively denied remedy for indefinite period)
Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. 1995) (Fifth Amendment in civil cases must be assessed question-by-question and bona fides considered)
Gebhardt v. Gallardo, 891 S.W.2d 327 (orig. proceeding) (blanket assertions of Fifth Amendment privilege are not permitted)
United States v. Malnik, 489 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.) (in absence of specific questions, sustaining a Fifth Amendment objection is unacceptable)