                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                             _________________

                              NO. 09-18-00431-CV
                             _________________


      IN RE RHAME & GORRELL WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
              284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 18-10-13801
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a mandamus petition, Rhame & Gorrell Wealth Management, LLC, argues

the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the real party in interest, Bogart

Wealth, LLC, to conduct discovery exceeding the limited discovery trial courts are

authorized to permit before ruling on motions to dismiss filed under the Texas

Citizen’s Participation Act. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.006(b)

(West 2015). Relator requests a stay of the trial court’s order allowing one

deposition, which requires Rhame & Gorrell to produce a corporate representative
                                         1
and a list of clients that Bogart Wealth’s former employee, George Musselman,

contacted after he began working for Rhame & Gorrell. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a).

      To obtain mandamus relief, Rhame & Gorrell must show the trial court clearly

abused its discretion and that it has no adequate remedy by appeal. See 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). On the

current record before us, we conclude that Rhame & Gorrell has failed to establish

the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering the discovery it now seeks to

avoid. Accordingly, Rhame & Gorrell’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Its motion for temporary relief is also denied as moot.

      PETITION DENIED.
                                                                  PER CURIAM



Submitted on November 19, 2018
Opinion Delivered November 20, 2018


Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.




                                          2
