In re Jana Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 03-19-00291-CV,03-19-00291-CV |
| Citation | 628 S.W.3d 526 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE JANA CORPORATION |
Benjamin Zinnecker, Missy Atwood, Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC, 301 Congress Ave Ste 1700, Austin, TX 78701-2985, Dana Livingston, Jim Ewbank, Shelly Masters, Natalya Sheddan, Nicolas Aitches-Gavrizi, Cokinos Young, 900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 425, Austin, TX 78746-5638, Carl R. Dawson, Ryan & Dawson, 770 S Post Oak Ln., Ste 550, Houston, TX 77056-6662, Katy Merrill Andre, Davis & Wright, P.C., 5316 W Highway 290 Ste 150, Austin, TX 78735-8925, John Felton, Lathrop & Gage LLP, 2345 Grand Blvd Ste 2200, Kansas City, MO 64108-2618, David A. Wright, Davis & Wright, PC, 5113 Southwest Parkway, Suite 115, Austin, TX 78735, for Real Party in Interest.
Bryan Rutherford, Gregory N. Ziegler, Rebecca M. Alcantar, MacDonald Devin, PC, 3800 Renaissance Tower, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270, for Relator.
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
This is a discovery dispute arising from litigation over an allegedly faulty plumbing material commonly known as PEX pipe. Defendant-Relator JANA Corporation, which entered a special appearance below challenging personal jurisdiction, see Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a, now seeks mandamus relief from an order granting a motion to compel depositions and from that order's appendix outlining the scope of those depositions. JANA contends that the court abused its discretion by allowing inquiry into both the jurisdictional question and the merits of the case. We agree with JANA and will conditionally grant mandamus relief from parts of the district court's order and appendix.
In 2016, Christianson Air Conditioning and Plumbing, LLC, sued Indiana plumbing manufacturer NIBCO, Inc., and others in Travis County district court, alleging that NIBCO had manufactured and/or sold allegedly defective PEX pipes to Christianson. Continental Homes of Texas, LP, intervened in the suit and raised similar claims against the defendants. Continental's claims were ultimately transferred to Williamson County.
Christianson and Continental later added claims against Canadian engineering firm JANA on the theory that JANA had "engaged in the business of introducing the product into channels of commerce and played more than an incidental role in marketing and certifying the reformulated PEX" piping. It is undisputed that JANA does not produce, market, or sell PEX pipes in Texas, although it did assist NIBCO with the reformulation of its pipes and NIBCO subsequently sold those pipes in the state. None of JANA's work for NIBCO occurred in Texas.
JANA filed a special appearance in both the Travis County and the Williamson County suits, arguing that neither Christianson nor Continental can establish personal jurisdiction in Texas. While the special appearance was pending, Christianson filed a motion to compel the depositions of two of JANA's principals, Wayne Bryce and Ken Oliphant. Christianson appended to the motion a list of 32 proposed topics for deposition. The three parties then executed a Rule 11 agreement providing that JANA would "make its witnesses Wayne Brice and Ken Oliphant available for depositions relating to special appearance" and that the parties would "confer by telephone on the scope of the depositions."
Despite conferring multiple times, the parties were unable to agree on the scope of the jurisdictional depositions. The parties argued the motion to compel to the Travis County district court, with Christianson proposing an amended list of thirty deposition topics. At the hearing, JANA maintained that Christianson's proposed list was an improper attempt to go beyond the jurisdictional inquiry and "delve into the merits of the case." The court requested post-hearing briefing on the proper scope for the depositions and ultimately issued an order compelling the depositions and allowing Christianson to inquire into all thirty topics, some of which used revised language provided by the court. JANA then filed this petition for mandamus relief from the district court's order and an emergency motion to stay all proceedings pending resolution of JANA's petition. Christianson, Continental, and NIBCO each filed a response as a real party in interest. We may afford JANA mandamus relief only if it can demonstrate a clear abuse of the court's discretion in issuing the order compelling the depositions. See Giffin v. Smith , 688 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (affording conditional mandamus relief from denial of motion to compel deposition answers).
JANA presents two arguments in support of its request for a writ of mandamus. First, it argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the depositions of Bryce and Oliphant because written discovery is, as JANA characterizes it, more than sufficient to resolve the jurisdictional inquiry. Second, and in the alternative, JANA argues that the district court's list of thirty topics for deposition exceeds the scope of discovery permitted while a special appearance is pending and therefore constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. We need not address JANA's first argument, as JANA remains bound by the Rule 11 agreement requiring the depositions.1 We will therefore turn to JANA's argument that the court's list of topics includes impermissible issues.
Rule 120a provides a mechanism by which a litigant may challenge the court's in personam or in rem jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a (). The Supreme Court of Texas has held that until the plaintiff establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant, any discovery served on that defendant must relate exclusively to the jurisdictional question. In re Doe , 444 S.W.3d 603, 608–09 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding). The court explained, "[A] defendant who files a special appearance in a suit is entitled to have the issue of personal jurisdiction heard and decided before any other matter." See id. at 609. "To allow discovery of a potential claim against a defendant over which the court would not have personal jurisdiction denies him the protection Texas procedure would otherwise afford under Rule 120a." For example, the court observed, a defendant subject to discovery on the merits would "run[ ] the risk that it [i.e., any results from discovery] will be used against him in a suit later filed in a court that does have jurisdiction." See id. at 609 n.27.
In its briefing to this Court, JANA objects to the following topics included in the appendix to the district court's order:2
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Christianson Air Conditioning
...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 th......