in Re Jose Bandin and Monica Babayan, 556 S.W.3d 891

Veracruz (a Mexican state) sued relators Jose Bandin and Monica Babayan (and others) in Texas, alleging conversion, Texas Theft Liability Act violations, and conspiracy tied to alleged laundering of public funds and purchase of Texas real estate.
Relators filed a TCPA motion to dismiss, which automatically stayed discovery; the trial court held a hearing on July 13, 2018 and had 30 days to rule.
At the July 13 hearing the court did not rule; Veracruz immediately sought limited discovery to trace funds, arguing the stay prevented it from showing a prima facie case.
On July 20 the trial court granted Veracruz an emergency discovery order allowing two-hour depositions of each relator in Spain and required the deposition transcripts be filed by August 3.
Relators sought mandamus relief to set aside the discovery order and a stay of the depositions; this court denied the stay and, ultimately, denied mandamus because relators had an adequate appellate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court may allow discovery after the TCPA hearing but before it rules	Veracruz: TCPA does not bar post-hearing discovery within the 30-day ruling window; such limited discovery can show prima facie proof	Bandin/Babayan: TCPA requires non-movant to establish prima facie case at hearing; post-hearing discovery is foreclosed	Court: Declined to decide the statutory question; assumed arguendo possible abuse but denied mandamus because appeal is adequate
Whether mandamus is available to prevent the post-hearing discovery order	Veracruz: expedited discovery needed; trial court acted within discretion	Relators: discovery order is a clear abuse and appellate remedy is inadequate given timing and foreign depositions	Court: Mandamus denied—relators have adequate remedies (final judgment or interlocutory TCPA appeal), so mandamus not warranted
Whether short notice two-hour depositions in Spain justified mandamus	Veracruz: notice was reasonable under TCPA time pressures and court could set expedited timetable	Relators: Less than 10 business days’ notice for witnesses in Spain is unreasonable under Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2	Court: No mandamus—record does not show the scheduling was so unreasonable as to require extraordinary relief; trial court has discretion over depositions

In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standards for abuse of discretion and adequacy of appellate remedy)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (standards for clear abuse of discretion)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus abuse-of-discretion guidance)
In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (when appellate remedy is inadequate for discovery orders, mandamus may be required)
Walker v. Schion, 420 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (trial court discretion in TCPA discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Hycarbex, Inc. v. Anglo-Suisse, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (trial court has broad power to control time, place, manner of depositions)
Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995) (mandamus warranted where privileged material was ordered produced)