in Re Storm-Williams Energy Service, LLC, WS Energy Services, LLC and Jack S. Storm, 13-17-00430-CV

Relators: Storm-Williams Energy Service, L.L.C., WS Energy Services, L.L.C., and Jack S. Storm filed a petition for writ of mandamus.
They sought to (1) vacate a March 20, 2017 protective order that sustained objections to a subpoena duces tecum served on non‑party Rebecca Dennis, and (2) obtain a continuance of a trial set for October 12, 2017.
The trial court had appointed a special master to review discovery disputes; the special master had not yet ruled on the contested discovery.
Relators claimed the barred discovery was essential and that they needed more time (and possibly counsel availability) to prepare for trial.
The trial court orally indicated willingness to reconsider a continuance but maintained its protective order; relators sought mandamus review from the court of appeals.
The court of appeals denied mandamus, finding relators had not shown a clear abuse of discretion or lack of an adequate appellate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting protection and sustaining objections to a subpoena to non‑party Rebecca Dennis	The requested discovery is central to relators’ defense and its exclusion severely compromises their case	The protection is proper; discovery is subject to special master review and is not shown to be essential or unobtainable elsewhere	Denied—relators failed to show the discovery goes to the heart of the case or that their ability to present a defense was vitiated
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance of the October 12, 2017 trial	A continuance is needed for additional discovery and because of potential counsel unavailability	Continuances for these grounds are discretionary and must meet Rule requirements; absence of counsel is not automatic good cause	Denied—motion for continuance is within the trial court’s sound discretion; court indicated willingness to reconsider, so mandamus not warranted

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; relator bears burden to show clear abuse and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standards reaffirmed)
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (abuse of discretion defined)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (review of trial court discretion and supporting evidence)
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (weighing benefits and detriments of mandamus review)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus remedy analysis)
In re Allied Chem. Corp., 227 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. 2007) (discovery centrality for mandamus relief)
Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995) (same—when discovery denial warrants mandamus)
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (continuance standards and discretion)
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gayle, 951 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1997) (mandamus relief not warranted where trial court retains discretion and may reconsider)