Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Caroline Allen and Jacob Allen brought a Dram Shop Act claim against Sixty Vines Woodlands, LLC. After joining Sixty Vines as a defendant in December 2025, the Allens proceeded under a docket-control order that closed discovery on July 28, 2026, set an August 27 summary-judgment deadline, and scheduled trial for October 26.
On August 3, the Allens sought leave to extend discovery, arguing that they had exercised diligence and developed targeted discovery requests only after a July 14 deposition of the person who served food and alcohol to Athena Foster and her fellow patrons. Sixty Vines filed a traditional and no-evidence summary-judgment motion on August 27. The trial court denied the requested discovery extension, later denied reconsideration, and scheduled the summary-judgment motion for submission on October 9.
The Allens petitioned for mandamus and requested temporary relief. They argued that the trial court abused its discretion by preventing additional discovery and that an ordinary appeal would be inadequate because the appellate record could not include testimony and data they had never been permitted to obtain.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. Applying the requirement that mandamus relators demonstrate both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy, the court concluded that the Allens had not established that they lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.
Because that failure independently defeated entitlement to mandamus relief, the court did not determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to extend discovery. It also denied the Allens’ motion for temporary relief.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus relief requires proof that an ordinary appeal would not provide an adequate remedy.
- The possibility that uncompleted discovery will be absent from the appellate record did not, on the record presented, establish the inadequacy of appeal.
- The court did not decide whether denying the requested discovery extension was an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the difficulty of obtaining mandamus review of interlocutory discovery-management decisions. A relator must do more than identify evidence that could not be collected; the relator must establish that later appellate review is inadequate.
The ruling leaves the trial court’s discovery order and summary-judgment proceedings undisturbed while preserving any issues that may properly be raised through an appeal from a final judgment.