This case involves a trial court order protecting certain party communications from discovery under the “investigative” privilegе of Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d). The court of appeals decided that there wаs nothing in the record to indicatе what facts
*954
the denied repоrts encompassed, and thus no basis existed from which to concludе that there was harmful error as rеquired under Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1).
We disapрrove, however, of the apparent suggestion in the apрellate court’s opinion thаt mandamus is the “timely” remedy for any wrongful denial of discovery.
Notes
. We also disapprove of similar language in
Caudillo v. Chiuminatto,
