In Re Energy Transfer LP, Enable Midstream Partners, LP, and Enable GP, LLC v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, Stay Lifted, and
Memorandum Opinion filed April 9, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00872-CV

IN RE ENERGY TRANSFER LP, ENABLE MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP,
AND ENABLE GP, LLC, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
80th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2023-05548

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 20, 2023, relators Energy Transfer LP, Enable Midstream
Partners, LP, and Enable GP, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this
Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the
petition, relators ask this Court to compel the Honorable Jeralynn Manor, presiding
judge of the 80th District Court of Harris County, to vacate the trial court’s
November 6, 2023 order compelling relators to respond to “narrowed requests
served September 1, 2023.” We conditionally grant the petition for writ of
mandamus.

I. BACKGROUND

Real party in interest Clay Moock (“Moock”), signed an arbitration
agreement consenting to mandatory arbitration with relators of all claims arising
and/or related to his employment, specifically including all tort claims. In April
2022, Moock was injured while performing his job as an environmental specialist.
In January 2023, Moock and family members sued relators, asserting various tort
claims.1 In March 2023, relators moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings
in the trial court. Relators noticed the hearing for April 2023, but it was continued
by the trial court to May 2023.

While relators waited for the arbitration motion to be decided, plaintiffs filed
multiple rounds of pre-arbitration discovery, and relators objected to each round of
discovery. The final round of discovery that was filed by plaintiffs was discussed
during a hearing in August 2023. During that hearing, the trial court indicated that
the requests were overbroad and directed the parties to confer over the requests. In
response to the hearing, plaintiffs served a new set of discovery requests on
September 1, 2023. Plaintiffs also served notice of pre-arbitration deposition of an
environmental senior manager at Energy Transfer. Relators served their objections
and motions for protection from the September 1, 2023 discovery requests.

On November 6, the trial court denied relator’s motion to stay and compel
arbitration. At the same time, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel
the September 1, 2023, pre-arbitration discovery requests and the pre-arbitration
deposition. The order required relators to withdraw their objections and provide
complete responses and productions to the requests within twenty days from the

1
In addition to Moock, Moock’s wife and children also are named as plaintiffs in the suit
against relators (collectively, “plaintiffs” and/or real parties in interest or “RPIs”).

2
date of the order.

On November 20, 2023, relators filed this original proceeding along with a
motion for temporary relief. Relators seek to vacate the trial court’s November 6,
2023 order compelling relators to respond to plaintiff’s pre-arbitration discovery
requests. On November 22, 2023, we granted relators’ motion for temporary relief
and stayed the trial court’s order compelling relators’ responses to plaintiffs’
requests for production.

II. ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ordinarily, to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish that
(1) the trial court abused its discretion; and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal
exists. See In re Christianson Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, 639 S.W.3d
671, 681 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding). The Texas Supreme Court has held that
“mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court erroneously orders pre-
arbitration discovery.” In re Copart, Inc., 619 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex. 2021) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (citing In re Houston Pipe Line Co., 311 S.W.3d 449,
452 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). Thus, “our focus is on whether
the trial court clearly abused its discretion—that is, whether the court ‘act[ed]
without reference to guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or unreasonable
manner.’” Copart, Inc., 619S.W.3d at 713 (quoting In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,
840 (Tex. 2018)).

B. PRE-ARBITRAITON DISCOVERY

Relators assert that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling
relators’ responses to merits-based pre-arbitration requests for production.
Relators argues that trial court’s order compelling this discovery is contrary to

3
well-settled law. Moreover, relators argue that even if RPIs were not barred from
obtaining pre-arbitration merits discovery, the trial court’s order failed to address
any of relators’ individual objections to RPIs’ merits-based discovery requests.
RPIs filed a response in opposition to relators’ petition for writ of
mandamus, stating that the trial court’s November 6 order officially moved the
litigation out of the pre-arbitration phase. RPIs concede that the trial court planned
to allow pre-arbitration discovery after the August 14 hearing, but the parties were
directed to confer. RPIs claim that the parties conferred but were unable to agree
on pre-arbitration discovery requests which led to the September 1 discovery
requests. RPIs argue that the trial court has broad discretion over discovery in
compelling relators to produce pre-arbitration discovery. Relators filed a reply in
support of their request for mandamus relief, arguing that RPIs’ response ignores
the law barring requested discovery on the merits.
Once relators moved to compel arbitration in March 2023, the trial court
should have limited the scope of discovery while the motion to compel arbitration
was pending. Here, however, the trial court’s order does not address arbitrability
discovery. Rather, the trial court ordered broad, merit-based discovery, which
negates the benefits of arbitration.2 See, e.g., In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., No.
14-05-00744-CV, 2005 WL 2787468, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct.
27, 2005, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (“[W]e find the trial court
abused its discretion in ordering the Rule 202 deposition prior to ruling on the
motion to compel arbitration.”). “The trial court has no discretion to delay the
decision on the merits of arbitrability until after discovery.” Id. Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.
2
Additionally, neither RPIs nor the trial court addressed any of relators’ individual
objections to RPIs’ merits discovery. The trial court’s order provides no limitations on the scope
of the discovery demanded. The trial court was required to “make an effort to impose reasonable
discovery limits.” In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).

4
III. CONCLUSION

Relators have established that they are entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we conditionally grant relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and
direct the trial court to vacate its November 6, 2023 order compelling relators to
respond to the September 1 merits-related pre-arbitration discovery requests. We
are confident the trial court will act in accordance with this opinion and the writ
will issue only if the trial court fails to comply. We also lift our stay order of
November 22, 2023.

PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.

5