In Re Union Carbide Corporation The Dow Chemical Company Performance Materials NA, Inc. Mobile Mini Tank & Pump Solutions, Inc. Sprint Transport, LLC Steven Dodds Alpha Technical Services Corporation, LC D/B/A Quala Rail & Specialty And Qualawash Holdings, LLC v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum
Opinion filed June 27, 2024; Stay Lifted
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-24-00187-CV
IN RE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; THE DOW CHEMICAL
COMPANY; PERFORMANCE MATERIALS NA, INC.; MOBILE MINI
TANK & PUMP SOLUTIONS, INC.; SPRINT TRANSPORT, LLC;
STEVEN DODDS; ALPHA TECHNICAL SERVICES CORPORATION, LC
D/B/A QUALA RAIL & SPECIALTY; AND QUALAWASH HOLDINGS,
LLC, Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
113th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2020-13324
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, relators Union Carbide Corporation; The
Dow Chemical Company; Performance Materials NA, Inc.; Mobile Mini Tank and
Pump Solutions, Inc.; Sprint Transport, LLC; Steven Dodds; Alpha Technical
Services Corporation, LC d/b/a Quala Rail & Specialty; and Qualawash Holdings,
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 Rabeea Sultan Collier, presiding judge of the 113th District
Court of Harris County, to (1) vacate her February 20, 2024 “Order Granting [the
real parties in interest] Motion to Compel Expert Reports” and (2) instruct the trial
court to enter an order denying real parties in interest February 13, 2024 “Motion
to Compel Expert Reports” from relators.
BACKGROUND
The underlying case involves claims of negligence, gross negligence, and
wrongful death connected to a 2019 incident at a Pasadena, Texas facility. The
parties filed a “Rule 11 Agreement on Expert Deadlines and Depositions” with the
trial court in August 2023. The Rule 11 agreement, which was signed and in
writing, stated: “[Relators] are NOT obligated to provide reports.”
In February 2024, six months after the parties filed the Rule 11 agreement,
real parties in interest filed a “Motion to Compel Expert Reports.” The trial court
held a hearing on the motion on February 20, 2024. The respondent granted the
motion from the bench and signed a written order granting the motion the same
day. 1
1
The parties entered into a second discovery agreement in October of 2023. The parties did not file that
signed agreement with the trial court until March 2024, after the trial court signed the order at issue in this
petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, we do not address the real parties’ in interest argument regarding the
later-filed discovery agreement. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 11. (“Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no
agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing,
signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of
record.”)
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion by a
trial court. In re BP Products N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding). A failure by the trial court to apply the law correctly constitutes an
abuse of discretion. Id. The relator must show no adequate remedy by appeal
exists. Id.A. ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Relators allege in their petition for writ of mandamus the trial court abused
its discretion when it granted the motion to compel relators to provide expert
reports because it failed to enforce the Rule 11 agreement, which stated:
“[Relators] are NOT obligated to provide reports.” To determine if the trial court
abused its discretion in failing to enforce the Rule 11 agreement, we must establish
whether (1) the agreement was enforceable; and (2) the trial court had good cause
to set aside the discovery agreement. See id. at 845–46.
1. Was the Rule 11 agreement enforceable? Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
191.1 provides that “except where specifically prohibited” the parties may modify
the “rules pertaining to discovery” by agreement. Id. at 845. (quoting Tex. R. Civ.
P. 191.1). An agreement is enforceable when it complies with the terms of Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. Id. at 845-46. Rule 11 states “[u]nless otherwise
provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any
suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the
papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of
record.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 11. “A trial court has a ministerial duty to enforce a valid
3
Rule 11 agreement.” Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 n. 58 (Tex.
2007).
Here, the Rule 11 agreement was enforceable because it complied with Rule
11 as it was in writing, signed, and filed with the trial court on August 15, 2023.
Thus, the agreement in this case complied with the requirements of Rule 11. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 11. The parties do not argue that the agreement was specifically
prohibited or that the agreement was outside the scope of Rule 191.1. See BP
Products., 244 S.W.3d at 846. Thus, the trial court had a ministerial duty to
enforce the Rule 11 agreement, which stated: “[Relators] are NOT obligated to
provide reports.” Therefore, the next step in the inquiry is determining whether the
trial court had good cause to set aside the discovery agreement. See id. at 845–46.
2. Did the trial court have good cause to set aside the Rule 11 agreement? The
Texas Supreme Court has addressed “the scope of a trial court’s power to set aside
an otherwise enforceable Rule 191.1 agreement.” Id. at 846. Consistent with its
powers over discovery, a trial court may modify discovery procedures and
limitations for “good cause.” Id. (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.1). This power,
however, is not “unbounded.” Id. (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.1 cmt. 1).
Wherever possible, a trial court should give effect to agreements between
the parties. Id.; see Fortis, 234 S.W.3d at 651 n. 58. (trial court had duty to enforce
valid Rule 11 pretrial agreement). Discovery agreements serve an important role in
efficient trial management, permitting the parties to settle their disputes without
resort to judicial supervision. BP Products, 244 S.W.3d at 846. The Rules of Civil
Procedure encourage parties to reach discovery agreements. Id. (citing Tex. R. Civ.
P. 191.2). When the parties conclude an agreement, the court should not lightly
ignore their bargain. Id.
4
Here, the trial court stated it believed the Rule 11 agreement did not prohibit
the court from disregarding the Rule 11 agreement; instead, the court determined
the Rule 11 agreement only prohibited the parties from enforcing discovery rules
among themselves if they violated the agreement. Specifically, the court stated:
THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate Rule 11 agreements because I do --I
stick with the Rule 11 agreement and the very specific words that are
written because I think that lawyers should be held to what they’ve
negotiated and what was negotiated is that defendants are not
obligated to provide reports. And this is obviously not a Rule 11
agreement that prohibits the Court from doing anything, it’s from the
plaintiffs from arguing that the defendants are not obligated to provide
reports. The Court’s going to order that reports are given seven days
before the depositions.
Nothing in this statement gives rise to the good cause necessary to set aside a valid
enforcement agreement.
Moreover, a court should be particularly reluctant to set aside a Rule 191.1
agreement after one party has acted in reliance on the agreed procedure and
performed its obligations under the agreement. Id. An easy disregard for partially
performed agreements would discourage parties from committing to discovery
agreements for fear that the other party would avail itself of the benefit of the
bargain and then attempt to avoid its own obligations. Id.
Here, relators allege, and real parties in interest concede, that real parties in
interest performed their obligations under the Rule 11 agreement before the trial
court failed to enforce the agreement in February 2024. 2 In addition to stating
2
In their response, the real parties in interest argue that relators breached the agreement in other regards
and, therefore, the agreement should not be enforced. Real parties in interest did not raise this argument
before the trial court, so we do not consider it. See In re Mittelsted, 661 S.W.3d 639, 659 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, orig. proceeding) (“The extraordinary nature of the mandamus remedy and the
5
“[Relators] are NOT obligated to provide reports,” the Rule 11 agreement specified
“[Real parties’ in interest] experts will provide reports by September 21.” Real
parties in interest met this deadline, as required by the agreement. Thus, the trial
court lacked good cause to disregard the Rule 11 agreement. See id. at 848(holding trial court lacked good cause to set aside valid discovery agreement where
one party had already acted in reliance on the agreed procedure).
The Rule 11 agreement was enforceable because it complied with Rule 11: it
was signed, in writing, and filed with the trial court at the time the trial court
signed the order at issue in the mandamus petition. Further, the trial court lacked
good cause to set aside the order, because no rationale was offered by the trial
court giving rise to good cause, and the agreement was partially performed.
Therefore, the trial court had a ministerial duty to enforce the Rule 11 agreement,
which stated, “[Relators] are NOT obligated to provide reports.” See Fortis 234
S.W.3d at 651 n. 58. (“A trial court has a ministerial duty to enforce a valid Rule
11 agreement.”) Thus, the trial court abused its discretion when it set aside the
Rule 11 agreement and granted the motion to compel relators to provide expert
reports.
B. No Adequate Remedy on Appeal
The next prong of the mandamus analysis requires this court to determine if
relator lacked an adequate remedy on appeal. Here, the benefits outweigh the
detriments of mandamus review because “[d]elaying review until appeal. . . would
defeat not only the purpose of the discovery agreement, but also the strong public
policy encouraging parties to resolve their discovery disputes without court
requirement that a party seeking mandamus relief exercise diligence both mandate that arguments not
presented to the trial court cannot first be considered in an original proceeding seeking mandamus.”).
6
intervention.” BP Products, 244 S.W.3d at 848–49 (holding that mandamus review
was available where trial court abused its discretion in setting aside a valid
discovery agreement without good cause). Thus, mandamus relief is proper.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the
trial court to vacate its February 20, 2024 order and enter an order denying real
parties in interest February 13, 2024 motion to compel relators to provide expert
reports. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c). The writ will issue only if the trial court fails
to comply. Further, we lift the stay on the trial court’s February 20, 2024 order and
deny relators’ motion to strike real parties’ in interest mandamus record.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher, Justices Zimmerer, and Wilson.
7