Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña Jr., 13-26-00118-CV, February 02, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to a relator challenging a scheduling order that imposed a retroactive discovery supplementation deadline. While the deadline predated the order itself, the Court held that the relator failed to provide a sufficient record demonstrating that her defense was “severely compromised” or that the error could not be rectified through a standard appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-conflict family law litigation, trial courts frequently issue docket control orders mid-stream, often following significant delays in hearing dates or the entry of temporary orders. This case serves as a critical reminder for matrimonial practitioners: even an “impossible” or facially absurd discovery deadline—such as one that expires before the order is even signed—does not automatically entitle a party to mandamus relief. In the context of a SAPCR or a complex property division, a party must specifically identify the witnesses, documents, or expert rebuttals they are prevented from presenting to move the needle from a mere “error” to a “severely compromised” defense warranting extraordinary intervention.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
On December 1, 2025, the trial court issued a “Docket Control Order/Scheduling Order.” Curiously, the order set a discovery supplementation deadline of October 24, 2025—roughly five weeks before the order was actually signed. Relator Alejandra Suarez Jaramillo filed a petition for writ of mandamus on January 31, 2026, just two days before the scheduled trial date of February 2, 2026. She argued that the retroactive deadline effectively barred her from supplementing discovery, thereby preventing her from presenting a reasonable defense. She sought an emergency stay of the trial and a vacatur of the discovery deadline.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a trial court’s imposition of a retroactive discovery deadline constitutes a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal, specifically when the relator claims the order prevents the presentation of a defense.
Rules Applied
The Court relied on the established mandamus standard requiring both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal, citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. and Walker v. Packer. Regarding discovery disputes, the Court applied the framework from In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, which dictates that mandamus is available only if: (1) an appellate court cannot cure the error (e.g., disclosure of privileged info); (2) the party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense is “severely compromised”; or (3) the missing discovery cannot be made part of the appellate record for review. Specifically, a defense is “severely compromised” only when the denied discovery goes “to the very heart” of the case.
Application
The Court’s analysis turned on the adequacy of the record provided by the relator. While the retroactive nature of the deadline appeared problematic on its face, the Court noted that the relator bore the burden of proving that the order actually hindered her case in a way that an appeal could not fix. Because the relator provided only a “limited record,” she failed to demonstrate how the October deadline specifically precluded her from developing essential elements of her defense. The Court looked for evidence that the trial would be a “waste of resources” due to the exclusion of specific, vital evidence, but found none. Without a showing that the discovery in question was central to the “very heart” of the litigation, the Court could not conclude that the relator’s ability to present her case was severely compromised.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relator failed to meet the heavy burden required for extraordinary relief. The Court found that the relator did not sufficiently demonstrate that the trial court’s scheduling order constituted an uncurable abuse of discretion.
Furthermore, the Court denied the request for an emergency stay. The holding emphasizes that even where a trial court’s order is logically inconsistent or retroactive, the relator must still bridge the gap between “procedural error” and “systemic failure of the litigation” to justify mandamus.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this opinion highlights the danger of relying on the “absurdity” of a trial court’s order. If you are faced with a retroactive or impossible scheduling deadline:
- Do not wait until the eve of trial. The relator here filed two days before trial; while the Court didn’t explicitly cite laches, the timing and “limited record” suggest a lack of strategic preparation for the mandamus.
- Make a Proffer. To show a defense is “severely compromised,” you must identify what you would have supplemented. If you cannot point to a specific expert report or a witness statement that was excluded because of the “impossible” deadline, you haven’t met the Walker v. Packer standard.
- Move for Continuance/Modification First. Ensure you have a clear, transcribed hearing where you explain to the trial judge exactly what evidence is being “killed” by the retroactive date.
Checklists
Building the Mandamus Record on Discovery Cutoffs
- Identify the Gap: Explicitly list the evidence (witnesses, documents, digital data) that was excluded by the retroactive deadline.
- The “Heart of the Case” Test: Draft an affidavit or a verified motion explaining how the excluded evidence relates to an essential element (e.g., best interest of the child or characterization of a specific asset).
- Transcript Necessity: Include the reporter’s record from the hearing where the scheduling order was discussed or challenged.
- Preserve the Error: File a formal Bill of Exception if the trial court refuses to allow the evidence at trial, ensuring the appellate court can see what was excluded.
Responding to Retroactive Orders
- Immediate Motion to Modify: File a motion to modify the scheduling order within 24–48 hours of receipt.
- Request Findings: Ask the court to clarify the intent of the retroactive date on the record.
- Document the Timeline: Create a clear table showing when the order was signed versus the dates it purports to mandate.
Citation
In re Alejandra Suarez Jaramillo, No. 13-26-00118-CV, 2026 WL [N/A] (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 2, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a potent weapon for a party who has secured a favorable, albeit messy, scheduling order. In a fast-moving custody modification, a “pro-order” party can use Jaramillo to argue against any attempt to disrupt the trial setting via mandamus. If the opposing counsel complains that a late-signed order effectively barred their social study or psychological evaluation supplement, you can argue that unless they can prove—with a specific record—how that missing data goes to the “very heart” of the best-interest analysis, they have an adequate remedy by appeal.
Conversely, for the party trapped by an “impossible” deadline, this case is a warning: the appellate court will not save you from a trial court’s clerical or scheduling sloppiness unless you have created a surgical record of harm. “It’s unfair” is not a legal argument; “It prevents the introduction of the Petitioner’s only expert on parental alienation” is.
~~2be032cf-6e51-4a0f-8b11-eac52a8e78a7~~
Share this content: