In re Oxy Ingleside Oil Pipeline, LLC Appeal from 36th District Court of San Patricio County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00679-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE OXY INGLESIDE OIL PIPELINE, L.L.C. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 On December 13, 2016, relator Oxy Ingleside Oil Pipeline, L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a November 30, 2016 order granting a motion to compel the depositions of relator’s corporate representatives filed by the real party in interest, White Point Ranch, L.L.C. Relator also filed a motion seeking emergency relief to stay the November 30, 2016 order pending resolution of this original proceeding. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but 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). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)) (orig. proceeding). An order that compels overly broad discovery is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy. In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 14th day of December, 2016. 2
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.
