discovery ordered by the trial court was overbroad, prohibitively expensive, and unduly burdensome. The trial court denied the motion. Because Arthur did not file a motion to compel further discovery from Harris following the November 21, 2008 hearing, Harris had no opportunity to urge his objections and motion for a protective order prior to being ordered to produce the documents sought by Arthur. We hold that in compelling discovery from Harris without requiring Arthur to identify specific discovery requests with which Harris had not complied and without having before it a motion to compel discovery from Harris, the trial court acted arbitrarily and without considering the discovery rules. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 215.1, 215.2, 215.3; In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex.2005) (<HOLDING>). We further hold that the trial court abused
holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that mandamus relief is available when trial court does not follow guiding rules and principles and reaches arbitrary and unxeasonable decision holding that trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law holding that where the trial court reaches a correct disposition this court can affirm on any basis holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision