Background
MV Transportation, Inc. and Amber Morgan sought mandamus relief in an eve-of-trial dispute involving expert witnesses. Their petition argued that the trial court had treated two late expert designations differently by permitting the real party in interest’s expert while striking the relators’ expert.
The mandamus record consisted largely of the relators’ motions and the challenged orders. It omitted the opposing party’s responses, transcripts of the relevant hearings, and two orders entered the day before the petition was filed. The omitted material showed that different judges decided the two expert disputes under different circumstances: the relators neither responded to nor appeared for the hearing on the opposing party’s motion for leave, while their own expert allegedly was designated after discovery closed, without leave and without an expert report.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. Justice Velia J. Meza joined that disposition and wrote separately to emphasize that a relator bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to establish entitlement to mandamus relief. She explained that the omissions here prevented the record from supporting the petition’s central claim of disparate treatment.
Justice Meza also concluded that the relators’ reliance on Diamond Hydraulics was incomplete because they omitted portions making the complaining party’s diligence and efforts to minimize prejudice central to the analysis. Although she discussed rules permitting sanctions for material misstatements or omissions, she expressed no view on whether sanctions were warranted because no party had requested them. She separately criticized personal attacks and accusations by the opposing side and urged greater professionalism from both sides.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus petitioner must provide every material document and the relevant hearing testimony, or state that no testimony was taken.
- Claims of inconsistent treatment require a record showing that the compared rulings arose under materially similar circumstances.
- Appellate counsel must portray the record and authorities fairly, while litigation pressure does not excuse personal attacks or other unprofessional conduct.
Why It Matters
The concurrence underscores the risks of seeking emergency appellate intervention on an incomplete or selectively presented record. When a petition asks an appellate court to disrupt an imminent trial, counsel must disclose material procedural facts and supply the documents needed to evaluate the challenged rulings.
It also warns that appellate advocacy obligations extend beyond zealous representation. Candor toward the court and professionalism toward opposing counsel remain essential, especially in expedited proceedings where judges may initially have only one side’s account.