Yesterday the Texas Supreme Court denied an emergency stay to block a Dallas Court of Appeals’ decision denying a writ of mandamus based on a trial court’s proposed order compelling the testimony of the chairman of the board of a pipeline company.
The underlying case, Energy Transfer LP, et al. v. Culberson Midstream LLC, et al., arose from a dispute between parties to a gas gathering and processing transaction. According to Energy Transfer’s petition, defendants noticed the deposition of the company’s executive chairman and chairman of the board of directors. A Dallas County district court denied Energy Transfer’s motion to quash and granted defendant’s motion to compel the deposition. However, the order had not been signed as of the date of plaintiff’s petition (July 12, 2023) or of the court of appeals’ denial of the petition (July 25, 2023). In In Re Energy Transfer LP (formerly known as Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.) and ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd.(05-23-00686-CV), the court of appeals determined that the petition did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53, which, among other things, requires “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.” The rule further requires a relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained of.”
Relator argued that its petition substantially complied with Rule 52 because the parties had “agreed as to the form of an order and submitted it to the [district] court on July 10 and further than “the trial court had made ‘an oral ruling’ on June 29, 2023, indicating that there was a hearing on the motions at issue on that date.” The court of appeals, however, declined to grant mandamus based on unsigned proposed order, particularly in the absence of a reporter’s record or transcript of the June 29 hearing. On appeal, SCOTX likewise declined to step in at this point in the proceedings.
