v. Loeb & Co., 349 So.2d 9 (Ala.1977)). Moreover, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus compelling a trial judge to alter a discovery order unless this Court ‘determines, based on all the facts that were before the trial court, that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.’ Ex parte Horton, 711 So.2d at 983. Moreover, ‘ “[t]he right sought to be enforced by mandamus must be clear and certain with no reasonable basis for controversy about the right to relief,” and “[t]he writ will not issue where the right in question is doubtful.” ’ Ex parte Bozeman, 420 So.2d 89, 91 (Ala.1982) (quoting Ex parte Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 397 So.2d 98, 102 (Ala.1981)).” ’ “Ex parte Pitts, 822 So.2d 418, 421-22 (Ala.2001). See also Ex parte Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, 872 So.2d 810, 813 (Ala.2003) (<HOLDING>). The Court in Ocwen noted that ‘[i]n certain
holding that mandamus will issue to reverse a trial courts ruling on a discovery issue only 1 where there is a showing that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion and 2 where the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal the petitioner has an affirmative burden to prove the existence of each of these conditions holding that unless discovery is granted as a matter of statute court rule or the constitution discovery is within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal