In Re Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. the State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00151-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/7/2025 9:42 AM
Case No. 15-25-00151-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
__________________________________________________________________
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
__________________________________________________________________
10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
In re TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Relator.
__________________________________________________________________

RELATOR’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
__________________________________________________________________

To the Honorable Fifteenth Court of Appeals:

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (“TABC”) files Relator’s Emergency

Motion for Temporary Relief to accompany its Petition for Writ of Mandamus. That

petition seeks a writ of mandamus causing Respondent, 281st Civil District Court Judge

Christine Weems, to vacate her July 30, 2025, order requiring TABC to produce

statutorily privileged records to plaintiffs Ashlie Dominguez, Orlando Hayward, and

Reyna Hayward, individually and as representatives of the estate of Niguel Hayward,

deceased (“Plaintiffs”).

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allow this Court to grant temporary

relief to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and preserve the rights of the parties during

the appeal. In re LCS SP, LLC, 640 S.W.3d 848, 855 (Tex. 2022).

If TABC is required to grant Plaintiffs access to the statutorily privileged records

before this Court rules, not only would the issue become moot, but statutorily privileged

information—i.e., the private records of a permittee, licensee, or other person that are
1
required or obtained by the commission or its agents, in connection with an

investigation or otherwise—would be made accessible in violation of Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Code section 5.48 and basic discovery principles outlined in this Court’s

precedent. TABC thus requests that the Court stay the district court’s order as soon as

possible pending its consideration of TABC’s petition for writ of mandamus.

BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Case and TABC Investigation

This is a personal injury case arising from the death of Niguel Hayward on or

about November 15, 2022, after Defendant Eduardo Moreno allegedly consumed

alcoholic beverages at the establishments of Defendants Sandbaggers Pub NP, and

Lifey Leasing, Inc. d/b/a Molly’s Pub (Molly’s Pub). TABC investigators went to both

Sandbaggers Pub and Molly’s Pub to conduct a TRACE investigation. In the course of

their investigation, the TABC investigators obtained a number of records from these

licensees.

B. Procedural History

On May 15, 2024, Ashlie Dominquez, Orlando Hayward, and Reyna Hayward,

individually and as representatives of the estate of Niguel Hayward, deceased

(“Plaintiffs”) served TABC with a subpoena duces tecum seeking production of

documents regarding the Defendant establishments, as well as information regarding

TABC’s investigation and procedures. See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

2
Third Party Compliance and Motion to Overrule Objections. On May 30, 2024, TABC

responded to the subpoena with objections stating that the subpoena and all requests

therein are barred by sovereign immunity, the subpoena seeks information that is

confidential or protected by law under Section 5.48 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage

Code and section 30.006(c) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and the

subpoena is overly broad and unduly burdensome to a non-party. See Exhibit B to

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Third Party Compliance and Motion to Overrule

Objections.

Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Compel seeking an order compelling TABC’s

compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena. See Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Third Party

Compliance and Motion to Overrule Objections at 1–5. TABC responded to Plaintiffs’

Motion on October 30, 2024. See Non-Party Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at 1–20. Plaintiffs’ replied on February 3,

2025. See Plaintiffs’ Reply to Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s Response to

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Third Party Compliance and Motion to Overrule

Objections. Hearings were held in the district court on February 4, 2025, and May 16,

2025. On July 30, 2025, the court ordered TABC to produce the following documents:

1. All documents or correspondence regarding TRACE Investigation resulting

from the car accident involving Eduardo Moreno and Orlando Hayward that

3
occurred on November 15, 2022, as long as their [sic] is not an open prosecution

of Defendant Moreno.

2. All documents or correspondence relating to Sandbagger’s Pub located at

13027 Highway 105 E, Conroe, TX 77306 for the years 2021 and 2022.

3. All documents of [sic] correspondence relating to Molly’s Pub located at 901 N.

Loop 336 W., Conroe, TX 77306 for the years 2021 and 2022.

See Order Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Responses from Third Party Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission at 1. (typos in

original).

TABC now seeks mandamus and emergency temporary relief from this Court.

ARGUMENT

I. A Stay is Warranted Because TABC is Likely to Prevail in Its Request for
Mandamus Relief.

Alongside a petition for writ of mandamus, relators “may file a motion to stay

any underlying proceedings or for any other temporary relief pending the court’s action

on the petition.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.10; see In re Alamo Defenders Descendants Ass’n, 619

S.W.3d 363, 366–67 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding). A stay is warranted

when the Court reaches “the tentative opinion that relator is entitled to the relief

sought,” and “the facts show that relator will be prejudiced in the absence of such

relief.” Republican Party of Tex. v. Dietz, 924 S.W.2d 932, 932-33 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam).

This Court routinely grants such stays to allow itself a “meaningful opportunity to
4
consider” relevant issues “upon less hurried deliberation.” Del Valle ISD v. Dibrell, 830

S.W.2d 87, 87-88 (Tex. 1992) (Cornyn, J., joined by Hecht, J., dissenting). The United

States Supreme Court has observed that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to

the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N.

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

A stay is warranted here because both Dietz elements are satisfied: (1) TABC is

entitled to mandamus relief because the district court’s order abuses its discretion in a

way that cannot be remedied on appeal; and (2) there is no way to prevent Plaintiffs

from obtaining statutorily privileged information pending the Court’s consideration of

the petition absent a stay.

Mandamus relief is available where the trial court’s error “constitute[s] a clear

abuse of discretion” and the relator lacks “an adequate remedy by appeal.” Walker v.

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion when it “acts

without reference to guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or unreasonable

manner.” In re Kay, No. 24-0149, 2025 WL 1668350, at *2 (Tex. June 13, 2025); In re

Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018).

The district court abused its discretion when it ordered the production of

privileged private records from the TRACE investigations as well as all documents

5
related to licensees Sandbaggers Pub and Molly’s Pub in direct contravention of the

plain language of section 5.48(b) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code.

A. The district court clearly abused its discretion by signing an order
requiring TABC to produce privileged records.

A court abuses its discretion when it orders privileged documents disclosed

without a waiver of privilege. In re Office of the AG of Tex., No. 02-13-00455-CV, 2014

WL 491684, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[T]his

broad grant [regarding discovery] is limited by the legitimate interests of the opposing

party to avoid overly broad requests, harassment, or disclosure of privileged

information.”). See also In re ExxonMobil Corp., 97 S.W.3d 353, 365 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)

TABC, as a non-party, has no interest in the underlying litigation. Plaintiffs’

subpoena requests disclosure of privileged, private records under section 5.48 of the

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. Section 5.48(b) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code

provides:

(b) The private records of a permittee, licensee, or other person that are
required or obtained by the commission or its agents, in connection with
an investigation or otherwise, are privileged unless introduced in evidence
in a hearing before the commission or before a court in this state or the
United States.

Private records are defined as “all records of a permittee, licensee, or other person other

than the name, proposed location, and type of permit or license sought in an application

for an original or renewal permit or license, or in a periodic report relating to the
6
importation, distribution, or sale of alcoholic beverages required by the commission to

be regularly filed by a permittee or licensee.” Id. at § 5.48(a).

The plain language, context, and purpose of section 5.48 establish that private

records are privileged unless TABC itself introduces them into evidence. 1 We begin

“with the plain language of the statute read in context, not in isolation.” See Ex parte

R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. 2021). The phrase “introduce into evidence” is a

widely known phrase of art meaning “to have (a fact or object) admitted into the trial

record, allowing it to be considered in the jury’s or court’s decision.” See Black’s Law

Dictionary 828 (7th ed. 1999); Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.011(b) (“Words and phrases that

have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or

otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.”) And section 5.48(b) uses the term

“introduced,” the past tense of “introduce,” meaning that under the statute, the private

records must actually have been introduced into the evidentiary record for the privilege

to have been waived.2 The private records at issue in this case have not been introduced

1
When construing a statute, courts should “look to and rely on the plain meaning of a statute’s words…unless
a different meaning is supplied, is apparent from the context, or the plain meaning of the words leads to absurd
or nonsensical results.” Cadena Comercial USA Corp. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 518 S.W.3d 318, 325
(Tex. 2017) (citing Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384, 389–90 (Tex. 2014)). Absent a
specific statutory definition, terms are construed according “to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 326
(citing In re Ford Motor Co., 442 S.W.3d 265, 271 (Tex. 2014)). Additionally, statutory “[w]ords and phrases shall
be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 311.011(a).
2 Records do not become part of the evidentiary record simply because a party seeks or obtains those records

via subpoena. A judge or magistrate must rule on the admission of evidence before it can be considered
“introduced into evidence.” See Tex. R. Evid. 103.
7
by TABC into any evidentiary record before the Commission or a court. Thus, the

privilege remains in place.

A party must have or gain possession or control over records in order to

introduce them into evidence. And records subject to section 5.48 are in the possession

of TABC. 3 Section 5.48 requires that those records be introduced into evidence if the

privilege is to be waived. Accordingly, TABC must first introduce the records into

evidence if the privilege is to be deemed waived because TABC is the entity that

possesses the records. That is what the legislature intended because that is what the

language of the statute requires.4 To allow for an exception to the privilege when any

party attempts to gather private records that could be introduced into evidence in the

future would be tantamount to the Court rewriting the statute. This would be improper

for the Court to do,5 and the plain statutory language does not support such a reading.

The plain text of section 5.48 also says that the private records are “privileged.”6

Under its ordinary meaning, a privilege is “[a]n evidentiary rule that gives a witness the

option to not disclose the fact asked for, even though it might be relevant; the right to

prevent disclosure of certain information in court, esp. when the information was

3
Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 5.48(b) (the privilege applies to private records “required or obtained by the
commission . . . in connection with an investigation or otherwise[.]”).
4Morath v. Lampasas Indep. Sch. Dist., 686 S.W.3d 725, 734 (Tex. 2024) (“[W]e look to the plain meaning of the

statutory terms, informed by context, as the most reliable guide to the Legislature's intent.”).
5 See, e.g., Miles v. Tex. Cent. R.R. & Infrastructure, Inc., 647 S.W.3d 613, 624 (Tex. 2022) (“[Courts] may not rewrite

statutes to broaden their applicability beyond what the plain language encompasses.”).
6 Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 5.48. The Office of the Attorney General has construed the term “privileged” in this

statute to mean “confidential” for purposes of the Public Information Act. See Tex. Att’y Gen. OR2023-37794
(citing Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-1235 (1990), ORD-186 (1978), and ORD-62 (1974)).
8
originally communicated in a professional or confidential relationship.”7 If the phrase

“or before a court” in section 5.48(b) meant that private records are only privileged

until any party demands the records in a court proceeding, then TABC would have to

disclose private records in response to every subpoena. Such a construction would

deplete the term “privilege” of its meaning and frustrate the purpose of the statute. It

makes no sense for the Legislature to draft a statute that effectively says: TABC has a

privilege not to disclose these private records in a court proceeding, except there is no

privilege when any party demands disclosure in a court proceeding. 8 That negates the

purpose of a privilege, contradicts the plain text, and makes the privilege meaningless;

therefore TABC’s construction of the statute is correct.

The purpose behind the privilege in section 5.48 also supports TABC’s

construction. The privilege dates back to 1937 and the Liquor Control Act. The

predecessor to section 5.48, former article 666-12a(5) of the Penal Code, provided that

“records … authorized or required by the terms of [the Liquor Control] Act shall be

privileged.”9 In 1968, the Attorney General was called upon to analyze that statute. The

Attorney General recognized that the Commission’s collection of records under article

666-12a(5) was for “the sole purpose of allowing the intelligent regulation of the liquor

7
Privilege, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
8 We must avoid interpretations that lead to nonsensical results that the legislature could not have intended. See,

e.g., Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 2018).
9 Acts 1937, 45th Leg., p. 1053, ch. 448, § 13.

9
industry.” 10 The legislature recognized that such records could be sensitive, so it

included a privilege to protect the relevant permittees or licensees and encourage them

to provide sensitive information to the Commission.11 The Attorney General

recognized that this privilege was not intended to shield such records from use by the

state and TABC in serving the law’s “intended regulatory purposes.” 12 And, consistent

with TABC’s current construction of section 5.48, the Attorney General recognized

that the privilege was waived when the records were used “in suits to which the State

or [Commission] is a party.”13 But it would defeat the historical purpose of the privilege

if any party in private civil litigation could gain access to the records simply by

subpoenaing them – that would not serve the law’s intended regulatory purposes.

Given that the records remain privileged unless and until TABC introduces them

into evidence in a hearing before the Commission or before a court in this state or the

United States – which has not occurred – TABC should not be ordered to produce the

private records contained within TABC’s investigative records or within other records

requested by Plaintiffs in discovery.

The Court should issue the requested stay.

10
Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. CM-213 at 3 (1968).
11
Id. at 4.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 3.
10
II. TABC will be prejudiced absent a stay.

Absent the requested stay, there is nothing preventing TABC from being

required to produce statutorily privileged private records contained in the TRACE

investigations and records of licensees Sandbaggers Pub and Molly’s Pub while the

Court considers TABC’s petition for mandamus. Supra Section I; see TABC Pet. for

Mandamus. The Court should preserve the status quo and allow itself a “meaningful

opportunity to consider” the issues contained in TABC’s petition “upon less hurried

deliberation” by granting the stay. Del Valle ISD, 830 S.W.2d at 87-88 (Cornyn, J., joined

by Hecht, J., dissenting).

11
Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

ERNEST C. GARCIA
Chief, Administrative Law Division

/s/Patrick Todd
PATRICK TODD
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24106513
Office of the Attorney General
Administrative Law Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Tel.: (512) 936-1660
Fax: (512) 320-0167
patrick.todd@oag.texas.gov

Counsel for Relator, Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission

12
RULE 52.10(a) CERTIFICATION

In compliance with Rule 52.10(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I
certify that I have notified all parties to the underlying proceeding of the filing of this
motion for temporary relief by email and by telephone call.

/s/Patrick Todd
PATRICK TODD
Assistant Attorney General

13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Temporary Relief in Connection
with the Previously Filed Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been served on October
7, 2025, on the following counsel of record and on Respondent via electronic service.

Christine Weems Muhammad S. Aziz
Judge of the 281st Civil District Court
State Bar No. 24043538
Raven Hubbard maziz@awtxlaw.com
Court Coordinator Jessica L. Dean
Harris County Civil Courthouse State Bar No. 24043538
201 Caroline, 14th Floor jdean@awtxlaw.com
Houston Texas 77002 Kim Spurlock
Raven_Hubbard@justex.net State Bar No. 24032582
Respondent kspurlock@awtxlaw.com
Hailey Hutson
Daragh Cartner State Bar No. 24143669
State Bar No. 24050387 hhutson@awtxlaw.com
dcarter@smithandhassler.com ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS,
SMITH & HASSLER AGOSTO, AZIZ & STOGNER
1225 North Loop West, Suite 525 800 Commerce Street
Houston, Texas 77008 Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: (713) 739-1250 Tel: (713) 222-7211
Counsel for Real Party in Interest Fax: (713) 225-0827
Plaintiff Ashlie Dominquez Counsel for Real Party in Interest
Plaintiffs Orlando Hayward and
Reyna Hayward, Individually and as
Representatives of the Estate of
Niguel Hayward, Deceased

/s/Patrick Todd
PATRICK TODD
Assistant Attorney General

14
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Mayra Contreras on behalf of Patrick Todd
Bar No. 24106513
mayra.contreras@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 106527651
Filing Code Description: Motion
Filing Description: 2025 1007 TABC Motion for Temporary Relief
Status as of 10/7/2025 9:44 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Liffey Inc., D/B/A Molly's Pub

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Danielle Hollis 24085380 danielle.hollis@wilsonelser.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Cameron Keener 24107827 cameron.keener@wilsonelser.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Kent Adams 869200 kent.adams@wilsonelser.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Eduardo Moreno

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Laura Wright 24098636 WrightEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Carlos Balido 1631230 balidoedocsnotifications@wbclawfirm.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Orlando Hayward, Indiv and as Rep of the Estate of Niguel
Hayward, Deceased

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Muhammad Aziz 24043538 maziz@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Hailey Hutson 24143669 Hhutson@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Jessica LDen jdean@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Kim Spurlock kspurlock@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Reyna Hayward, Indiv and as Rep of the Estate of Niguel
Hayward, Deceased

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Muhammad Aziz 24043538 maziz@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Mayra Contreras on behalf of Patrick Todd
Bar No. 24106513
mayra.contreras@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 106527651
Filing Code Description: Motion
Filing Description: 2025 1007 TABC Motion for Temporary Relief
Status as of 10/7/2025 9:44 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Reyna Hayward, Indiv and as Rep of the Estate of Niguel
Hayward, Deceased

Muhammad Aziz 24043538 maziz@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Kim Spurlock kspurlock@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Jessica LDen jdean@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Hailey Hutson 24143669 Hhutson@awtxlaw.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Sandbaggers Pub, NP

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Michael Logan 12497500 Mlogan@krcl.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Kayla Bright 24138092 kbright@krcl.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Time to Spare LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Michael Logan 12497500 Mlogan@krcl.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Kayla Bright 24138092 kbright@krcl.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: KellyRay Wren

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Stephen Mengis 24094842 smengis@feesmith.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Brian Cano 24045613 bcano@feesmith.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Draggin Tools Trucking, LLC
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Mayra Contreras on behalf of Patrick Todd
Bar No. 24106513
mayra.contreras@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 106527651
Filing Code Description: Motion
Filing Description: 2025 1007 TABC Motion for Temporary Relief
Status as of 10/7/2025 9:44 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Draggin Tools Trucking, LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Stephen Mengis 24094842 smengis@feesmith.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Brian Cano 24045613 bcano@feesmith.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Patrick Todd patrick.todd@oag.texas.gov 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Mayra Contreras mayra.contreras@oag.texas.gov 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Christine Weems

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Christine Weems Raven_Hubbard@justex.net 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Ashlie Dominguez

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Daragh Carter 24050387 dcarter@smithandhassler.com 10/7/2025 9:42:05 AM SENT