Opinion
NUMBER 13-19-00086-CV
02-27-2019
IN RE MOLLY McARDLE'S, LLC
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
On February 27, 2019, relator Molly McArdle's, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to set aside an order signed on November 8, 2018, which granted a motion for a spoliation instruction to be submitted to the jury. By one issue, relator asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering sanctions which prevent it "from fully presenting its defense on the merits." Relator has also filed an opposed emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings pending resolution of its petition because the trial on the merits is scheduled to commence on March 4, 2019.
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (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, 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Nationwide, 494 S.W.3d at 712; In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion concerning factual matters if the record establishes that the trial court could have reached only one conclusion. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 841.
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 at 136. In deciding whether the benefits of mandamus outweigh the detriments, we weigh the public and private interests involved, and we look to the facts in each case to determine the adequacy of an appeal. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136-37. Mandamus "may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss, [and] allow the appellate courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments." In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. 148 S.W.3d at 136.
An appeal from a trial court's discovery order is not an adequate remedy if the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated or severely compromised. In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); In re First Transit Inc., 499 S.W.3d 584, 597 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding). Nevertheless, orders imposing discovery sanctions, including spoliation instructions, are generally reviewed on appeal from the final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.3 (stating that discovery sanction orders "shall be subject to review on appeal from the final judgment"); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. 2003) (reviewing a spoliation instruction imposed as a discovery sanction by appeal); see also In re Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 12-17-00156-CV, 2017 WL 3225051, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 31, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (stating that a "jury instruction on spoliation does not constitute a death penalty sanction because it only creates a rebuttable presumption" and concluding that mandamus relief was not appropriate to review the order granting the spoliation instruction); In re Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 04-13-00644-CV, 2013 WL 6730094, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 20, 2013, orig. proceeding) (concluding that the relator had an adequate remedy by appeal from an order granting a presumptive spoliation instruction); In re Medtronic, Inc., No. 10-14-00077-CV, 2014 WL 2159555, at *5 (Tex. App.-Waco May 22, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (same). In this regard, we apply an abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's decision to submit or refuse a jury instruction. See Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the record presented, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the opposed emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings and the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice Delivered and filed the 27th day of February, 2019.