In re Patrick Luthen, Rachel Luthen, and Andrew Luthen Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Cameron County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00251-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE PATRICK LUTHEN, RACHEL LUTHEN, AND ANDREW LUTHEN On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relators, Patrick Luthen, Rachel Luthen, and Andrew Luthen, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency temporary relief on May 5, 2016. Through this original proceeding, relators seek to set aside an order limiting the scope of the deposition of a non-party, non-resident witness. By emergency motion, relators request this Court to “order the parties to refrain from instructing the deponent, Kent Nyberg, not 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). to answer deposition questions” on a specified subject. Relators request a ruling by the end of the business day “because the subject deposition is tomorrow at 9AM in Minnesota.” To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 463 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). An appeal is inadequate when the parties are in danger of permanently losing substantial rights. In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 211 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). “Such a danger arises when the appellate court would not be able to cure the error, when the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated, or when the error cannot be made part of the appellate record.” Id. “If an appellate court cannot remedy a trial court's discovery error, then an adequate appellate remedy does not exist.” In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 2 The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency temporary relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 5th day of May, 2016. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
