With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Antonio 1995, orig. proceeding); In re Messervey Trust, No. 04-00-00700-CV, 2001 WL 55642, at *4 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, Jan.24, 2001, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). Nevertheless, the State argued in the trial court that because there were pending criminal proceedings, it was “absolutely entitled to a full abatement on everything.” Gore disagrees, arguing a writ of mandamus should issue because there is no legal basis for abating the case and the trial court’s indefinite abatement violates the open courts provision in article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. The parties in the civil case are entitled to full discovery within a reasonable time, to develop their claims and defenses, and to have the case tried. See Colonial Pipeline, 968 S.W.2d at 941-42 (<HOLDING>); In re R.R., 26 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex.

A: holding that although trial court has broad discretion to define scope of discovery it can abuse its discretion by acting unreasonably
B: holding that order abating discovery from all but small group of plaintiffs until that groups claims were resolved unreasonably interfered with defendants ability to prepare a defense and was abuse of discretion
C: holding blanket order staying discovery on main issue because of related criminal proceeding was abuse of discretion because it vitiated defendants ability to prepare defense in civil case
D: holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion
B.