HOUSTON – The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a major petroleum producer, overturning a lower court ruling and granting them writ of mandamus relief in their case against a manufacturing company’s production error that led to the temporary shutdown of a Texas refinery.
Founded in 1924, Total S.A. is a French multinational integrated oil and gas company and one of the seven "Supermajor" oil companies in the world.
The company, which produces polyethylene at its high-density polyethylene plant in Bayport, Texas, sued defendants White Tucker Company; Jonell Filtration Products, Inc.; Filtration Group, LLC; and Texas Filtration, Inc. for the shutdown of one of the units at its plant for approximately 11 days allegedly due to problems caused by the improper fabrication of guard filters which the companies manufactured and distributed.
The defendants sought to take the deposition of Julian Libeert, an engineer who wrote a memorandum analyzing the cause of the shutdown. Total advised the defendants that Libeert was not its employee and, therefore, they would have to subpoena Libeert if they wanted to take his deposition as a nonparty witness.
The defendents then moved to compel Libeert’s deposition on the ground that Libeert is Total’s employee or, alternatively, Total otherwise has control over Libeert such that it was not necessary to subpoena him. Total responded that Libeert worked for another related entity, not for Total, and Total had no control over Libeert.
“No fact issues preclude granting mandamus relief. The record evidence shows Libeert is not an employee of Petrochemicals nor under Petrochemicals’s control,” wrote Chief Justice Chem Thompson Frost.
“So, the Defendants may obtain Libeert’s deposition only through a properly served subpoena. The trial court abused its discretion by compelling Libeert’s deposition without requiring that the Defendants serve a subpoena on him. Because Petrochemicals lacks an adequate remedy by appeal, this court should grant Petrochemicals’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to set aside the portion of the Deposition Order that compels Libeert’s deposition.”