in Re Vcc, LLC, Vratsinas Construction Co., Nato Garcia D/B/A Nato Garcia Company, and Phi Service Agency, Inc.
17-0818
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2017Background
- Relators (VCC, Vratsinas Construction, Nato Garcia Co., Phi Service) sought mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court to compel the trial court to continue a November 2017 trial setting to February 5, 2018, enter a new scheduling order, vacate denials of continuances, and permit joinder of a third party (Armko).
- Relators also filed emergency motions seeking stays of discovery deadlines and certain discovery orders after Hurricane Harvey; they attached multiple trial-court orders (Tabs 9–17) challenging various discovery rulings including production of voluminous email archives and expansive requests for electronic communications.
- Pharr‑San Juan‑Alamo ISD (real party) filed a response opposing mandamus on the merits but agreed to a February 5, 2018 trial date; it argues the trial court has expressed willingness to reset the date if not prevented by this Court’s stay.
- The trial court had previously ordered production based on relators’ search terms, producing a set of archived emails (the parties discussed “49 million emails”), and sustained objections to overly broad requests for employees’ personal communications.
- Pharr ISD contends the principal mandamus issue (trial continuance) is moot because the trial court is willing to grant the requested February 5, 2018 date, and that the other discovery and joinder complaints are unbriefed, improperly presented for extraordinary relief, or not reviewable by mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel trial court to continue trial to Feb. 5, 2018 and vacate denials of continuances | Relators ask the Court to order the continuance, new scheduling order, and related relief | Pharr ISD states the trial court is willing to set Feb. 5, 2018 and thus the mandamus issue is moot; Court should dismiss | Moot — court should dismiss or decline relief because requested continuance is offered by trial court (per Pharr ISD) |
| Whether this Court should review multiple unbriefed discovery orders (including broad production and email-search orders) in this mandamus | Relators indicated intent to include numerous discovery orders and attached orders to their emergency motion | Pharr ISD argues relators failed to brief/identify the issues; many rulings are discretionary or were result of relators’ own requests (e.g., search terms) and not proper for mandamus | Deny/not retain review — unbriefed, unidentified discovery complaints are unsuitable for extraordinary relief; trial court discretion remains |
| Whether production order requiring emails ("49 million emails") was an abuse warranting mandamus | Relators argue voluminous email production shows abuse and emergency relief needed | Pharr ISD notes the large email set resulted from search terms proposed by relators and orders they requested; no abuse shown | Deny — no abuse; production stems from relators’ own search requests, not an error requiring mandamus |
| Whether denial of leave to file third-party claim (joinder of Armko) is reviewable by mandamus | Relators contend joinder deadline passed before depositions and trial court abused discretion denying leave | Pharr ISD points out relators had designated Armko earlier as a responsible third party and missed joinder deadline; joinder denial is within trial court discretion and not mandamus-appropriate | Deny — enforcement of joinder deadline not an abuse and denial not usually subject to mandamus review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gayle, 951 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1997) (Court considered whether to address additional related issues in a mandamus proceeding when granting relief on a primary matter)
- In re Allied Chem. Corp., 227 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus relief is improper when it would be useless or unavailing)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (case becomes moot when controversy ceases to exist at any stage)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus standards: abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy; caution against embroiling appellate courts in routine pretrial rulings)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus standards and limits on extraordinary review)