In Re: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Gregory Alan Scott v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 13, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00912-CV

IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
AND GREGORY ALAN SCOTT, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00711-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Garcia, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Before the Court are relators’ August 2, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

and emergency motion for temporary relief. In their petition, relators challenge trial

court orders denying their motions to quash three depositions and compelling the

depositions to occur by August 15, 2024. In their emergency motion, relators seek

to stay the depositions pending our action on the petition.

Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to

show they are entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, relators did not meet that burden based on their

failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.7(a)(2). Rule 52.7(a)(2) requires relators to file with their mandamus petition a

properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from the underlying

proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no

testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(2). Relators failed to do that here even though the record reflects that the

trial court held a hearing on the motions at issue.

Relators argue that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to quash the

depositions because the depositions did not meet the proportionality requirements

under rule 192.4. Proportionality complaints must be supported with evidence. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 792 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). Any

evidence presented at the hearing would be relevant and material to relators’ request

for mandamus relief. Absent relators’ compliance with rule 52.7(a)(2), however, we

cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny

relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.

/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
JUSTICE
240912F.P05

–2–