In re Christianson Air Conditioning

• Decision Date: 04 February 2022
• Docket Number: No. 20-0384,20-0384
• Citation: 639 S.W.3d 671
• Parties: IN RE CHRISTIANSON AIR CONDITIONING & PLUMBING, LLC and Continental Homes of Texas, LP, Relators
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

639 S.W.3d 671

IN RE CHRISTIANSON AIR CONDITIONING & PLUMBING, LLC and Continental Homes of Texas, LP, Relators

No. 20-0384

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued September 28, 2021

OPINION DELIVERED: February 4, 2022

Chandra Horne Bonine, Carl R. Dawson, Houston, for Relator Continental Homes of Texas, LP.

Gregory Norman Ziegler, Dallas, Rebecca M. Alcantar, Alex Bell, for Real Party in Interest.

Missy K. Atwood, Benjamin Zinnecker, Austin, John Felton, Benjamin Walton, for Other interested party.

Shelly Masters, Austin, Katherine ‘Katy’ Patricia M. Andre, Dana Livingston, David A. Wright, Austin, Nicolas Aitches-Gavrizi, James B. Ewbank II, Austin, for Relator Christianson Air Conditioning and Plumbing, LLC.

Justice Busby delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Lehrmann, Justice Devine, Justice Blacklock, Justice Bland, Justice Huddle, and Justice Young joined, and in which Justice Boyd joined except as to Part II.B.

This petition for writ of mandamus concerns the scope of available discovery regarding personal jurisdiction under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a. After the parties failed to agree on the scope of two corporate representative depositions, the trial court granted a motion to compel the depositions on a list of thirty topics proposed by the plaintiffs. The court of appeals granted mandamus relief for the nonresident defendant, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it compelled discovery on certain topics that touched both jurisdictional and merits issues. The plaintiffs seek mandamus relief from this Court, contending that—at least where specific jurisdiction is asserted— Rule 120a discovery need not relate exclusively to the jurisdictional issue. We agree.

Neither the text of Rule 120a nor our cases support the court of appeals’ position. The trial court did not abuse its discretion simply by compelling discovery on jurisdictional topics that overlap with the merits. Rather, we hold that trial courts should apply the following standard: the information sought must be essential to prove at least one part of the plaintiff's theory of personal jurisdiction. In addition, general principles that limit the scope of discovery apply equally to jurisdictional discovery. We conditionally grant mandamus relief, direct the court of appeals to vacate its mandamus order, and instruct the trial court to apply these standards to the particular deposition topics that remain in dispute.

BACKGROUND

The underlying suit concerns water leaks from plastic pipe made of crosslinked polyethylene, commonly known as PEX. The relators—Texas plumbing installer Christianson Air Conditioning and Plumbing, LLC and homebuilder Continental Homes of Texas, LP (together "Christianson")—sued Indiana pipe manufacturer NIBCO, alleging that NIBCO-branded PEX leaked after Christianson installed it in thousands of Central Texas homes built by Continental and others. Christianson also brought claims for strict products liability, negligence, and fraud—among others—against the real party in interest, Canadian engineering firm Jana Corporation. Christianson alleged that NIBCO hired Jana to reformulate NIBCO's defective PEX pipe and to maintain certification of the pipe in the Texas market.

Jana filed a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, asserting that Christianson could not establish minimum contacts between Jana and Texas. In response to Jana's special appearance, Christianson moved for a continuance and to compel jurisdictional discovery.

While Jana's special appearance and Christianson's motions were pending, the parties entered into a Rule 11 agreement. Jana agreed to make two of its executives—Wayne Bryce and Ken Oliphant—available for corporate representative depositions related to the special appearance, but the parties did not reach complete agreement on the scope of the depositions.

At the trial court hearing on Christianson's motion to compel, Christianson proposed an amended list of thirty deposition topics. Jana argued that the topics impermissibly touched the merits of the case. The trial court received supplemental briefing after the hearing and granted Christianson's motion to compel, ordering that the depositions cover all thirty topics. Jana then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals, challenging nine of the deposition topics. The court of appeals granted Jana mandamus relief on eight of the nine topics, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because jurisdictional discovery "must relate exclusively to the jurisdictional question." In re JANA Corp. , 628 S.W.3d 526, 528, 530 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, orig. proceeding).

Christianson then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, arguing that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered jurisdictional discovery that overlapped with the merits. In Christianson's view, overlap between jurisdictional and merits issues is inevitable when a plaintiff seeks discovery regarding a defendant's forum contacts related to the litigation.

Christianson challenges the court of appeals’ holding as to six specific topics. The topics that remain in dispute are:

No. 17: JANA's studies, tests, investigations and assessments of NIBCO's PEX 1006 as it relates to the performance of NIBCO PEX 1006 in field conditions in Texas.

No. 18: JANA's studies, tests, investigations, and assessments of PE and PEX generally as it relates to the performance of PE and PEX in field conditions in Texas.

No. 21: JANA's efforts to assist NIBCO in maintaining certification for the sale of NIBCO PEX products at issue in this lawsuit which caused injury to the Plaintiff in Texas.

No. 24: JANA's knowledge of problems with PEX pipe sold by NIBCO and CPI (e.g., leaks, cracks, failures, pinhole leaks, oxidative failure, outside diameter, certain failures to meet ASTM 876 and F2023, variability in the PEX pipe, aggressive environments, etc.) at issue in this lawsuit which caused injury to the Plaintiff in Texas.¹

No. 27: JANA's knowledge and impact of conditions, including but not limited to, high temperature, high pressure, hot chlorinated water, level of antioxidants, level of cross-linking, levels of stabilization, electronic beaming, oxidative degradation, and UV radiation on PEX pipe such as the NIBCO PEX products at issue in this lawsuit with end use or field conditions like those in Texas.

No. 30: JANA's testing, inspection, investigation and assessment of any failed NIBCO PEX products at issue in this lawsuit.

ANALYSIS

I. Discovery under Rule 120a is limited to information essential to the plaintiff's theory of personal jurisdiction.

To determine the scope of available discovery regarding personal jurisdiction, we begin with the relevant rule. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a addresses the procedures for making and contesting special appearances. Among other things, the rule sets out the materials that may form the basis of a trial court's ruling on a special appearance: "the pleadings, any stipulations made by and between the parties, such affidavits and attachments as may be filed by the parties, the results of discovery processes, and any oral testimony." TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a(3). We have described "relevant discovery" as "a vital part of resolving a special appearance." Exito Elecs. Co. v. Trejo , 142 S.W.3d 302, 307 (Tex. 2004).

When a party opposing a special appearance lacks "facts essential" to its opposition, a trial court may order a continuance to allow the party to obtain jurisdictional discovery. TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a(3) ("Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot ... present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just."). Continuances for jurisdictional discovery are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand , 83 S.W.3d 789, 800 (Tex. 2002) (concluding trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying party's motion for continuance to conduct further jurisdictional discovery where party had "ample time to conduct, and did conduct, discovery"); see Villegas v. Carter , 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986).

Though the text of Rule 120a does not address the scope of jurisdictional discovery directly, its "essential" facts standard for a continuance is informative, and our prior cases have suggested some further guiding principles. In In re Doe , we observed that "[d]iscovery is limited to matters directly relevant" to the jurisdictional issue. 444 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding). Thus, in the jurisdictional context, it is not enough that the discovery "is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a). Rather, the discovery must target evidence that would make a disputed fact "of consequence in determining" the jurisdictional issue "more or less probable." TEX. R. EVID. 401. Merits discovery on matters not directly relevant to jurisdiction should be taken only after a special appearance is denied. Dawson–Austin v. Austin , 968 S.W.2d 319, 321, 323 (Tex. 1998) ; see TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a(2) ("Any motion to challenge the jurisdiction provided for herein shall be heard and determined before a motion to transfer venue or any other plea or pleading may be heard.").

Nothing in Rule 120a or our cases suggests that jurisdictional discovery must relate exclusively to the jurisdictional question, as the court of appeals held. To the contrary, we have indicated that jurisdictional discovery may overlap with merits issues in certain circumstances. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W.3d 547, 554–55 (Tex. 2000) (comparing evidentiary inquiry to establish personal jurisdiction with similar inquiries—such as challenges to standing—that serve...