In re Metropolitan Water Company, LP, Metropolitan Water Company of Texas, LLC, and W. Scott Carlson Appeal from 21st District Court of Burleson County (memorandum opinion by visiting justice davis)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-20-00144-CV IN RE METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANY, LP, METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANY OF TEXAS, LLC, AND W. SCOTT CARLSON Original Proceeding From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 29,386 MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on June 11, 2020, is denied.1 1 In reaching the decision to deny the Petition for Writ of Mandamus which was sought to limit the scope of the discovery responses required, we note that the Relators have argued that the Real Parties in Interest have circumscribed the scope of their request in an exhibit presented for oral argument. The Relators argue that the discovery requested as described within that exhibit is not nearly as broad as the scope in the Real Parties in Interest original request or as ordered by the Respondent in the discovery order that is the subject of this proceeding. This Court takes no position on whether the exhibit presents a more narrow discovery request than the trial court’s order. Our decision is limited to review of the trial court’s order based upon what was in front of the trial court at that time. But to the extent that the parties can use that exhibit as a tool to work towards producing the appropriate discovery without further judicial involvement they are encouraged to do so. Moreover, we note that no discovery that the parties agree is properly within the REX. D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Petition for writ of mandamus denied Opinion delivered and filed November 24, 2020 [OT06] scope of discovery should be withheld while disputes about other discovery requests might have to be resolved through a judicial determination. In re Metropolitan Water Company, LP Page 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
