in Re: VNA, Inc. D/B/A VNA Home Healthcare of El Paso, 403 S.W.3d 483

VNA, Inc. d/b/a VNA Home HealthCare of El Paso seeks mandamus relief from a trial court discovery order on the arbitrability of an employment-related arbitration agreement with Maria Figueroa.
Figueroa sued VNA for negligence and sought to defeat the arbitration clause on grounds of substantive unconscionability and potential limitations period issues.
Figueroa moved for limited pre-arbitration discovery to determine if the arbitration agreement was valid, claiming she did not sign it and was not told its consequences.
The trial court ordered limited discovery, allowing a deposition of an authorized representative to address validity of the arbitration agreement.
VNA filed for mandamus, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and that there was no adequate remedy by appeal.
The appellate court conditionally grants mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate the discovery order, holding the discovery was an abuse and not recoverable by ordinary appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an abuse of discretion ordering discovery on arbitrability?	Figueroa showed colorable basis for fraud in inducement.	Discovery would not be material; no colorable basis shown.	Yes, abuse; discovery order vacated.
Did Figueroa’s asserted fraudulent-inducement defense justify pre-arbitration discovery?	Defense rests on fraudulent inducement due to nondisclosure/signature issues.	Affidavit does not show misrepresentation or concealment by VNA.	No colorable basis; discovery improper.
Is there an adequate remedy by appeal to challenge the discovery order?	Discovery burden is excessive and precludes appeal of irreparable harm.	Errors can be reviewed on appeal; discovery not proper.	No adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus appropriate.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard requiring abuse and lack of adequate remedy by appeal)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion when misapplying the law)
In re Houston Pipe Line Co., 311 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. 2010) (pre-arbitration discovery may be ordered only when reasonably necessary)
In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (discovery must be reasonably tailored to relevance; avoid fishing expeditions)
In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998) (limits on discovery to matters relevant to the case)
In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (burden on party opposing arbitration to prove a defense)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (adequate remedy by mandamus when discovery imposes disproportionate burden)