in Re National Lloyds Insurance Company, 13-15-00390-CV

Background

National Lloyds Insurance Company (relator) was sued in a putative class action by Arguello, Hope, and Associates (attorneys for insureds), alleging National Lloyds encouraged insureds to fire their lawyers to reduce claim settlements.
Real parties sought and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring National Lloyds to respond within ten days to two discovery requests attached to the TRO application; those requests sought communications matching an exemplar letter and post-termination communications with insureds since March 2012.
National Lloyds asserted it did not receive the discovery exhibit with the TRO application initially, filed motions including a motion for protective order and to dissolve the TRO, and contended later that the TRO was void and the compelled discovery was improper and overbroad.
The trial court granted an emergency motion to compel and ordered production within two days; National Lloyds sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals to vacate that order.
The court of appeals reviewed whether (1) notice of the hearing was adequate, (2) the TRO complied with Rule 680’s ex parte requirements, (3) the court exceeded authority by ordering affirmative discovery during a TRO, and (4) the discovery requests were overbroad.
The court denied mandamus, holding notice and the TRO’s findings were adequate, trial courts may order expedited discovery during TRO proceedings, the two-day production schedule was within the court’s discretion, and the requests were sufficiently limited and not shown to be overbroad in the trial court record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of hearing notice	Real parties: notice filed electronically gave three days’ notice; court may shorten notice for exigency	National Lloyds: received insufficient notice of the August 25 hearing	Court: three days’ service complied with rules; no abuse of discretion and relator waived objection by not timely objecting
Validity of ex parte TRO under Rule 680	Real parties: TRO and supporting affidavits showed imminent irreparable harm (loss of clients, goodwill) and explained need for ex parte relief	National Lloyds: TRO failed to recite specific facts and was issued despite ample time to give notice	Court: TRO sufficiently identified specific facts and irreparable injuries; complied with Rule 680
Authority to order affirmative discovery during TRO	Real parties: expedited discovery is common and appropriate to adjudicate TRO issues	National Lloyds: TRO should preserve status quo; court cannot compel affirmative acts like production	Court: trial courts may order expedited discovery during TRO proceedings; ordering production did not exceed authority
Overbreadth of discovery requests	Real parties: requests were time- and subject-limited and relevant to claims	National Lloyds: requests were facially overbroad and not properly limited	Court: requests were limited (since March 2012 and tied to exemplar letter/post-termination communications); relator failed to preserve objections before trial court

Key Cases Cited

In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus as remedy for trial-court errors in exercise of jurisdiction)
In re Office of the Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. 2008) (TROs issued without required Rule 680 findings are void)
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009) (mandamus available when trial court compels production beyond permissible discovery)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (purpose of temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo)
In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (trial court has discretion to set discovery schedules and shorten response times)
In re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2006) (scope of discovery lies within trial court's discretion)