In Re Agua Special Utility District v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00041-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE AGUA SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

By petition for writ of mandamus, Agua Special Utility District (Agua) contends that

the trial court 2 abused its discretion by: (1) ordering it to engage in discovery on the merits

before ruling on its plea to the jurisdiction; and (2) ordering the production of irrelevant

project files and financial records. We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number C-3353-20-I in the 398th District

Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Keno Vasquez. See id. R. 52.2.
in part and deny it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Agua contracted with real party in interest O.G. Construction Company, L.L.C.

(OG) and other entities for the construction and installation of the Palmview Wastewater

Collection System in Hidalgo County, Texas. The Palmview Wastewater Collection

System consisted of a five-phase project to replace septic systems with a regional sewer

system. In this regard, OG entered into a contract with Agua whereby OG would install

gravity sewer lines on Phase I—Group A&G of the five-phase project. However, the

parties’ relationship deteriorated, and Agua ultimately terminated OG’s contract.

OG subsequently intervened in a pending lawsuit filed against Agua by S&B

Infrastructure, Ltd., Agua’s engineer on the project. OG asserted that Agua breached its

contract, violated the Texas Prompt Payment Act and the Texas Trust Fund Act, and

committed ultra vires actions. OG sought recovery in quantum meruit, damages, and

injunctive and declaratory relief. OG contended in relevant part that the project was

underfunded and Agua reallocated project funds that were intended to be used for

contract payments in Phase I rather than pay OG as required under the contract. Agua

thereafter filed a counterclaim against OG for breach of contract, alleging that its work on

the project was deficient and that OG abandoned the contract.

On August 2, 2024, more than two years after OG intervened in the lawsuit, Agua

filed a combined “Plea to the Jurisdiction and Traditional and No Evidence Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment” pertaining to OG’s claims against it. Agua alleged that it was

immune from suit pursuant to § 271.153 of the Texas Local Government Code and it

2
sought “a dismissal or take-nothing judgment as to O.G.’s affirmative claims because

each claim fails as a matter of law because of sovereign immunity, common law

construction law doctrines, or express contractual terms.” See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§§ 271.151–.160 (governing the adjudication of claims arising under written contracts with

local governmental entities).

The trial court originally set Agua’s combined plea for hearing on September 17,

2024. However, on September 3, 2024, OG filed a motion to continue the hearing to

secure additional time for discovery. Over Agua’s objections, the trial court deferred

hearing on Agua’s combined plea to allow discovery. Thereafter, OG filed a motion to

compel discovery and Agua filed responsive pleadings thereto. The trial court issued an

order granting OG’s motion to compel; however, the parties disagreed regarding the

interpretation of that order. On October 24, 2024, the trial court signed an amended order

granting OG’s motion to compel and signed a second amended order granting OG’s

motion to compel on January 7, 2025.

This original proceeding ensued. Agua filed this petition for writ of mandamus and

an opposed amended emergency motion seeking to stay all discovery in the trial court.

We granted Agua’s opposed amended emergency motion to stay, and we ordered all

discovery to be stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We requested and received a response

to the petition for writ of mandamus from OG and a reply thereto from Agua.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

3
840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

III. MERITS DISCOVERY

In its first issue, Agua asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering

discovery on the merits of OG’s lawsuit before ruling on Agua’s plea to the jurisdiction. In

contrast, OG contends that Agua’s jurisdictional “arguments are intertwined to a

significant degree with the facts on the merits,” and thus, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in proceeding with discovery.

Generally, a ruling on jurisdiction should be made “as soon as practicable.” Tex.

Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004). It is a “fundamental

precept that a court must not proceed on the merits of a case until legitimate challenges

to its jurisdiction have been decided.” Id. at 228; see W. Travis Cnty. Pub. Util. Agency v.

CCNG Dev. Co., 514 S.W.3d 770, 776 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.); see also In re

City of Edinburg, No. 13-23-00131-CV, 2023 WL 3185808, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg May 1, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). That said, the trial court

“should hear evidence as necessary to determine the [jurisdictional] issue before

proceeding with the case.” Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex.

2000). “Whether a determination of subject-matter jurisdiction can be made in a

4
preliminary hearing or should await a fuller development of the merits of the case must

be left largely to the trial court’s sound exercise of discretion.” Id.; see County of El Paso

v. Aguilar, 600 S.W.3d 62, 81 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.).

“Consistent with these tenets, several Texas courts of appeals have concluded that

a trial court abuses its discretion when it delays ruling on a jurisdictional plea for the

purpose of allowing discovery unnecessary to the jurisdictional challenge.” In re Bexar

Medina Atascosa Cntys. Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. One, No. 04-24-00538-

CV, 2025 WL 466069, at *4, __ S.W.3d __, __ (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 12, 2025,

orig. proceeding) (collecting cases); see City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 591–

92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding); see also In re Dallas County,

No. 05-21-01144-CV, 2022 WL 1467987, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 10, 2022, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Without any fact-dependent jurisdictional arguments requiring

further discovery, the trial court was obligated to hear the pleas to the jurisdiction at the

earliest opportunity before considering whether to compel discovery.”).

Here, Agua filed a “Plea to the Jurisdiction and Traditional and No Evidence Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment.” In short, Agua has entwined jurisdictional and merits-

based arguments in a single pleading. Because the jurisdictional inquiry is intertwined

with the merits, the court’s order does not compel any discovery “unnecessary to the

jurisdictional challenge.” See In re Bexar Medina Atascosa Cntys. Water Control &

Improvement Dist. No. One, 2025 WL 466069, at *4, __ S.W.3d at __; City of Galveston,

93 S.W.3d at 591–92. We conclude that under the circumstances presented here, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a fuller development of the merits of the case

5
before ruling on Agua’s combined plea. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 554;

County of El Paso, 600 S.W.3d at 81. We overrule Agua’s first issue.

IV. RELEVANCE

In its second issue, Agua contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

ordering it to produce irrelevant project files and financial records. In its motion to compel,

OG argues, in contrast, that the disputed discovery is relevant and material to its claims:

1) [OG] sued [Agua] for breach of contract and violations of the Texas
Trust Fund Act, among other claims germane to Agua’s counterclaim
against [OG], alleging that [Agua’s] hostile conduct on the Project
was intended to place [OG] and the contractors under duress to
reduce amounts ultimately due for services rendered, because
[Agua] did not have the financial resources with which to pay actual
Project costs. [OG] alleges that [Agua] wrongfully terminated [OG]
for the same reasons.

2) [Agua’s] former Executive Director, Oscar Cancino, testified in this
case that during his tenure at Agua he discovered a $3–$4 million
budget shortfall of funds necessary for construction of the Palmview
Wastewater Collection System Project (the “Project”) mere weeks
before [OG] commenced its work in October 2017. In addition, [OG]
has adduced other evidence showing that between 2017 and 2020,
the main period of [OG’s] performance, [Agua’s] finances plummeted
due to various malfeasances and mismanagement, though much
detail is left unclear due to Agua’s refusal to produce material and
relevant discovery on this subject.

3) [Agua] has a duty to produce its Project file. Failure to produce the
Project file precludes plaintiff from presenting its case. The Project
consists of five component projects, which together constitute the
collection system at issue. Each project began at different times. The
Project file is relevant because the first four projects, including
[OG’s], were funded from one pot of money provided by the Texas
Water Development Board (“TWDB”). The fifth project was funded
by a grant from North American Development Bank (“NAD Bank”),
though Agua did not secure these funds until after [OG’s] wrongful
termination. The cost of each component project is relevant to enable
[OG] to present and explain to the jury [Agua’s] overall funding
shortfall, because the cost of one phase affected the other, which

6
affected Agua’s conduct when payments to contractors were coming
due, and so forth.

4) Agua’s financial records concerning its own operating and reserve
accounts are relevant and must be produced. Agua’s Grant Contract
with the TWDB makes [Agua] responsible for all project costs that
exceed the TWDB budget. The TWDB required Agua to maintain a
basis level of financial responsibility and cited it for noncompliance
with that responsibility during the Project. Because of the shortfall of
Project funds and Agua funds, [OG] alleges that Agua’s hostile
conduct toward it and the other contractors was driven by its need to
desperately ration TWDB funds by not paying for properly performed
work.

5) Defendant Agua’s communications with other entities and individuals
it hired to design, inspect, construct, or otherwise oversee the Project
are material and relevant to [OG’s] claims. As discussed, the Project
was made up of smaller projects with similar scopes of work
constituting one system. Discovery of communications related to the
Project are not outside the scope of discovery.

A. Applicable Law

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure define the scope of discovery as follows:

In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not
privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,
whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or
the claim or defense of any other party. It is not a ground for objection that
the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a). To determine what is “relevant,” we turn our attention to the Texas

Rules of Evidence, which explain that “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact

is of consequence in determining the action.” TEX. R. EVID. 401. We evaluate the

relevancy of discovery on a case-by-case basis by considering the pleadings and the

instrumentality of the alleged injury. In re Sun Coast Res., Inc., 562 S.W.3d 138, 146 (Tex.

7
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding); see In re Plains Pipeline, L.P., 618

S.W.3d 780, 790 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, orig. proceeding).

The scope of discovery is generally within the trial court’s discretion. In re UPS

Ground Freight, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 828, 831 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In

re Cent. Or. Truck Co., 644 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

“Because the purpose of discovery is to enable courts to decide disputes based on what

the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed, the rules must be liberally construed to

allow the litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial.” In

re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (cleaned

up).

Nevertheless, “[a] discovery order that compels production beyond the rules of

procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.” In re

Kuraray Am., Inc., 656 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(quoting In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam)). In this regard, “discovery requests and orders are overbroad if they are not

properly tailored with regard to time, place, or subject matter, or otherwise require

production of information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d at 252 (cleaned up).

Therefore, discovery requests that are overbroad and seek the production of irrelevant

matters constitute impermissible “fishing expeditions,” and an order requiring production

in response to such requests constitutes an abuse of discretion. In re UPS Ground

8
Freight, Inc., 646 S.W.3d at 832; In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 814

(Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

B. Burdensomeness

Agua asserts that some of the requests for production at issue “are unduly

burdensome and harassing.” Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.4 provides that discovery

is subject to a “proportionality overlay.” See In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 712 S.W.3d

53, 67 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595,

599 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding)). Under Rule 192.4, discovery methods “should” be

limited if (1) “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive,” or (2) “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.4. “These proportionality complaints are determined on a

case-by-case basis and must be supported with evidence, not conclusory allegations.”

See In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 712 S.W.3d at 67–68.

Agua did not present evidence in support of its contention that any of the requests

for production were unduly burdensome or harassing. Accordingly, Agua has not

established that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard. See id.; In re K & L Auto

Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d at 253; In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 792

(Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding).

C. Definitions for Requests for Production

The requests for production contained several definitions of import to the issues in

this original proceeding. In its requests for production, OG defined the term “Project” to

9
“mean the design and/or construction of the Phase-I, Group-A&G of the Palmview

Wastewater Collection System.” OG served as the contractor for this Project, also known

as Project 2. The terms “Palmview Wastewater Collection System Project” or “Entire

System” are defined to “mean the design and/or construction of” Projects 1 through 5,

which “connect and comprise the entire Palmview Wastewater Collection System.”

Agua contends, in part, that the trial court ordered it “to produce documents for the

entirety of the larger project when [OG’s] actual requests were limited to portions of the

project on which [OG] worked,” and the trial court did so regarding request for production

numbers 18, 44, 45, 47, 48, 86, 91, 92, and 97. OG’s requests for production differentiate

between requests pertaining to the specific Project on which it worked and requests

regarding the Entire System, and in contrast, OG’s motion to compel discovery broadly

asserts that OG is entitled to discovery regarding the Entire System. We agree with Agua

that there is a disconnect between OG’s requests for production and its motion to compel

discovery. In this regard, “[a] party cannot be compelled to produce that . . . which it has

not been requested to produce.” In re Exmark Mfg. Co., 299 S.W.3d 519, 531 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. dism’d]). However, the trial

court’s January 7, 2025 order grants in whole or in part the specific requests for production

that were propounded by OG and does not on its face expand or rewrite those discovery

requests. If it did otherwise, it would be in error. See id. We review the requests and

rulings thereon accordingly.

10
D. Separate Project Files and Communications

Agua asserts that “even where plaintiffs allege an overarching scheme, discovery

into distinct breaches of contract or torts against non-parties constitutes a fishing

expedition.” Agua thus asserts that discovery regarding separate contracts and

communications with third-party contractors is not probative of any alleged breach by

Agua and instead constitutes a prohibited fishing expedition. In contrast, OG contends

that the discovery at issue “targets documents and communications relevant to Agua’s

knowledge of its financial shortfall, its interference with contractor payments, and its

rationale for termination—all central to [OG’s] fraud and bad faith claims.” OG explains

that “the materials at issue here are essential to establish motive, pretext, financial

mismanagement of funds for the project and Agua’s bad faith, all of which are pled with

specificity.”

In terms of this general subject matter, Agua specifically complains that the trial

court erred in compelling it to produce documents in response to the following requests

for production:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce all communications
between you and Mor-Wil, LLC related to the Palmview Wastewater
Collection System Project.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all communications
between you and Saenz Brothers Construction, LLC related to the
Palmview Wastewater Collection System Project.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Produce all communications
between you and Mor-Wil, LLC related to the PROJECT 5: NADBank
Palmview Yard Kline Project (Hook-Up Project).

11
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Produce all communications
between you and Mor-Wil, LLC related to the PROJECT 4: Main Lift Station
and Forcemain Conveyance System.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Produce all communications
between you and Jimmy Closner & Sons Construction Co., lnc., related to
the Project-2 GROUP A&G and/or [OG].

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Produce all communications
between you and Jimmy Closner & Sons Construction Co., Inc., related to
PROJECT-3: Lift Stations A2, F, G & G7.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Produce all communications
between you and Southern Trenchless Solutions, LLC related to the
Palmview Wastewater Collection System.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Produce all communications
between you and . . . Eddie Saenz referencing O.G. Construction.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Produce all communications
between you and M2 Engineering referencing [OG].

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Produce all documents, including
payments, exchanged between you and Performance Services, Inc.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 90: Produce all letters of non-
compliance issued to you from any government agency between 2016 and
the present.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: To the extent not produced,
produce all project files for Projects 1-5 made part of the Entire System.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95: To the extent not produced,
produce all project files for Projects 1-5 made part of the Entire System,
including all communications with the respective contractors.

As stated previously, OG served as the contractor for Phase I-Group A&G, otherwise

known as Project 2. Request for production numbers 12, 56, 57, and 59 seek Agua’s

communications with the contractors on the other four projects regarding either those

specific projects or the Entire Project. Request for production number 13 seeks

12
communications with Saenz Brothers Construction, LLC, a failed bidder for OG’s contract,

related to the Entire System. Request for production numbers 93 and 95 request the

project files and communications for the Entire System. Request for production number

88 requests any documents that Agua exchanged with Performance Services, Inc., a

contractor unrelated to the Entire System.

Examining the pleadings, we observe that OG has sued Agua for breach of

contract and claims relating to the breach of its contract, and Agua has filed similar

counterclaims against OG. While OG is entitled to discover matters pertaining to the

breach of its contract, OG has not demonstrated how requests for information concerning

separate contracts, and communications regarding those separate contracts, bear any

relationship to its case. See In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins., 507 S.W.3d 219, 225 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (rejecting the contention that discovery “unrelated to the

insurance event at issue” was relevant to show that relator “had knowledge of its own

misdeeds and a pattern and practice to defraud its insureds”); In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins., 449

S.W.3d at 487, 489 (concluding that the overpayment, underpayment, or proper payment

of the claims of unrelated third parties was not relevant to the claim at issue “given the

many variables associated with a particular claim”); In re Mem’l Hermann Health Sys.,

607 S.W.3d 913, 920 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding)

(“Reimbursement rates concerning services not received by Poole are not relevant to the

determination of whether MHHS’s charges for the services received by Poole are

reasonable.”); see also In re Bilfinger Westcon, Inc., No. 13-19-00466-CV, 2019 WL

6795870, at *8 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Dec. 12, 2019, orig. proceeding

13
[mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (“Some of the requests for production seek the production of

documents pertaining to all of relator’s contracts, projects, and assignments, other than

the one at issue in this lawsuit, without limitation. These requests are overbroad.”).

Accordingly, we agree with Agua that request for production numbers 12, 13, 56,

57, 59, 88, 93, and 95 lack relevance to the instant breach of contract case. See In re

Nat’l Lloyds Ins., 507 S.W.3d at 225; In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins., 449 S.W.3d at 489; In re

Mem’l Hermann Health Sys., 607 S.W.3d at 920; see also In re Bilfinger Westcon, Inc.,

2019 WL 6795870, at *8.

We reach a different conclusion regarding the remaining requests for production

referenced above. Request for production numbers 58, 64, and 67 seek communications

specifically pertaining to OG between Agua and a separate contractor (number 58),

between Agua and an employee of Agua (number 64), and between Agua and an

engineer on the Entire System (number 67). Request for production number 61 seeks

Agua’s communications with Southern Trenchless Solutions, LLC, which in relevant part

inspected OG’s performance under the contract. We conclude that these requests are

limited in scope and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence regarding the alleged breaches of contract in this lawsuit. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

192.3(a); In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d at 248.

E. Financial Records Unrelated To Payments To OG

Agua contends that OG’s requests for financial records that are unrelated to

payments for OG’s work constitute fishing expeditions. Agua specifically complains about

14
the following requests for production and the trial court’s rulings thereon, which we have

summarized below:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce all supporting
documents, including communications, exchanged between you and your
accounts [sic] concerning your finances for the fiscal years 2017–2022 in
connection with any independent auditor’s report.

Granted.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Produce profit and loss
statements, trial balance reports, balance sheets, general ledgers, book of
accounts, financial statements and other supporting documents for your
accounting for the fiscal years 2017–2022.

Granted; however, Agua “shall only be required to produce responsive
documents related to the use or transfer of construction or project funds
utilized for the Palmview Wastewater Collection System by December 2,
2024.”

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 75: Produce complete unredacted
statements of any accounts for your cash on hand, operating, and reserve
for operations for the fiscal years 2018 and 2020.

Granted; however, Agua “shall only be required to produce all unredacted
statements of any accounts containing construction funds for the Palmview
Wastewater Collection System for the years 2018 to 2020 by December 2,
2024.”

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce any documents or
electronic transmissions reflecting transfers of funds from the construction
account for the Project to any other account over which you maintain
control.

Granted.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Produce all documents reflecting
payments to Armin Garza.

Granted; however, Agua “shall only be required to produce all documents
reflecting payments to Armin Garza if such payments were related to the
Palmview Wastewater Collection System, by December 2, 2024.”

15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all documents reflecting
payments to Oscar “Coach” Salinas.

Granted; however, Agua “shall only be required to produce all documents
reflecting payments to Oscar “Coach” Salinas if such payments were related
to the Palmview Wastewater Collection System, by December 2, 2024.”

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 83: Produce communications with
North American Development Bank related to the Project.

Granted.

Armin Garza and Oscar “Coach” Salinas were employees of Agua who were given

severance packages. North American Development Bank funded a separate project,

Project 5, after OG was terminated.

OG asserts, in relevant part, that Agua accused it of breaching the contract to avoid

paying it rather than admitting that it lacked funds for payment because Agua’s Entire

System was underfunded. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s order compelling

responses to the foregoing requests for production, as limited by the trial court, was not

an abuse of discretion. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a); In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627

S.W.3d at 248. We overrule Agua’s assertions otherwise.

F. Summary

We sustain in part and overrule in part Agua’s second issue as specifically

discussed above.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

OG’s response, Agua’s reply, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that OG

has met its burden to obtain mandamus relief, in part, as discussed herein. Accordingly,

16
we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We

conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus as to request for production numbers

12, 13, 56, 57, 59, 88, 93, and 95. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in part, as

to the remaining matters raised in this original proceeding. We direct the trial court to

vacate that part of its order pertaining to request for production numbers 12, 13, 56, 57,

59, 88, 93, and 95. Our writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with

this memorandum opinion.

JON WEST
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
17th day of July, 2025.

17