Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00416-CV __________________ IN RE CAROLINE ALLEN AND JACOB ALLEN __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-04-05460 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators Caroline Allen and Jacob Allen filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10. The trial court denied Relators’ request to extend the discovery period and scheduled submission for a motion for summary judgment for October 9, 2026. Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to extend the discovery period so they could conduct additional discovery directed toward their Dram Shop Act claim against Real Party in Interest Sixty Vines Woodlands, LLC (“Sixty Vines”). Relators contend they lack an adequate remedy by appeal because 1 the appellate record cannot contain testimony and data the trial court never permitted Relators to obtain. Relators joined Sixty Vines as a dram shop defendant in December 2025. The Docket Control Order signed March 16, 2026, closed the discovery period on July 28, set an August 27 summary judgment deadline, and an October 26 trial date. On August 3, Relators filed a Motion for Leave to Extend the Discovery Deadlines. Relators maintained they exercised due diligence in obtaining discovery and they asserted good cause existed because they first developed targeted discovery requests after the July 14 deposition of the person who served food and alcohol to Real Party in Interest Athena Foster and her fellow patrons. On August 27, Sixty Vines filed a Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 28, the trial court denied Relators’ Motion for Leave to Extend the Discovery Deadlines. On September 15, Relators asked the trial court to reconsider its ruling, or in the alternative to grant a continuance, and subject to that motion filed their response to the motion for summary judgment. On October 2, the trial court denied Relators’ motion for reconsideration. We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court when the relators lack an 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). After 2 reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Relators have failed to establish that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 8, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 9, 2026 Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ. 3