No Last-Minute Retreats: Stopping the ‘Tactical Withdrawal’ to Avoid Mandamus Review of Invasive Discovery Orders
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 04-25-00819-CV, January 28, 2026.
On appeal from the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County.
Synopsis
A real party in interest’s unilateral stipulation to withdraw contested discovery requests does not render a mandamus proceeding moot. Because such stipulations remain subject to the trial court’s discretion to modify or withdraw, they lack the “enforceable assurances”—such as a Rule 11 agreement or a binding covenant—necessary to provide certainty that the discovery dispute will not recur once appellate oversight is removed.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes divorce and property litigation, discovery regarding “net worth” and business valuations is frequently a flashpoint for mandamus relief. Opposing counsel may attempt a “tactical withdrawal” of invasive discovery requests once an appellate court begins its review, hoping to avoid a published opinion that curtails their discovery strategy. This ruling ensures that once a party has been forced to seek mandamus relief from an overbroad or premature net worth discovery order, the opposing party cannot unilaterally pull the plug on the appellate process without providing a truly binding, non-discretionary guarantee that the offensive requests are gone for good.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Solaris Transportation and its related entities (collectively, “Solaris”) were the subject of a trial court order dated November 17, 2025, which granted a motion to conduct discovery into their net worth. Seeking to protect sensitive financial data from what they deemed an improper order, Solaris filed a petition for writ of mandamus on December 17, 2025. The Fourth Court of Appeals requested responses from the Real Parties in Interest (RPIs). After receiving an extension of time to respond, the RPIs waited until the deadline—January 16, 2026—to file a motion to dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. They claimed the dispute was over because they had filed a unilateral stipulation in the trial court stating they had withdrawn the contested discovery requests and would not pursue similar net worth discovery in the future. Solaris immediately opposed the dismissal, arguing that a mere stipulation is not a permanent shield against the discovery order.
Issues Decided
Whether a party’s unilateral stipulation to withdraw discovery requests—made after a mandamus petition has been filed—renders the appellate proceeding moot when the stipulation can be modified or withdrawn at the trial court’s discretion.
Rules Applied
The court relied primarily on the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. 2022). That precedent dictates that the withdrawal of offensive discovery requests does not moot a dispute unless accompanied by “enforceable assurances” via a Rule 11 agreement, a binding covenant, or another mechanism providing sufficient certainty. Additionally, the court cited Uvalde Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. F.T. Kincaid Estate, 720 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986), for the proposition that stipulations are not absolute and may be modified or withdrawn at the discretion of the trial court.
Application
The court examined the RPIs’ motion to dismiss through the lens of the “voluntary cessation” doctrine and the specific requirements for mootness in the discovery context. The RPIs argued that their unilateral filing in the trial court ended the controversy. However, the court found the timing suspicious—coming at the “very hour” the appellate court was looking. More importantly, the court noted that a stipulation is a weak tool for mootness; it does not bind the trial court, which retains the discretion to allow the RPIs to withdraw the stipulation later in the litigation. Because there was no Rule 11 agreement (which is a contract) and no amended order from the trial court vacating the original discovery grant with prejudice, Solaris remained at risk. The court concluded that the RPIs failed to provide the “requisite certainty” that the invasive discovery would not be refiled the moment the mandamus was dismissed.
Holding
The court denied the motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. It held that a unilateral and unenforceable withdrawal of discovery does not moot a dispute.
The court further held that for a discovery dispute to become moot following the filing of a mandamus, the moving party must evidence a resolution that is sufficiently enforceable, such as an amended court order that precludes the discovery or a binding agreement that would remain enforceable even if a party attempted to later withdraw it.
Practical Application
This case is a strategic victory for Relators. If you are challenging an invasive discovery order (e.g., net worth, psychological evaluations, or broad electronic imaging) and the RPI tries to “moot” your petition by withdrawing the request, do not reflexively agree to dismiss. Unless they provide a signed Rule 11 agreement or the trial court signs an order vacating the discovery with prejudice, the threat remains. Conversely, for the party seeking to avoid a negative appellate opinion, this case clarifies that you cannot simply “hide” from the Court of Appeals by filing a letter of withdrawal; you must enter into a binding, enforceable settlement of that specific discovery issue.
Checklists
Defeating a Tactical Motion to Dismiss for Mootness
- Analyze the Instrument of Withdrawal: Determine if the withdrawal is a “unilateral stipulation” or a contract (Rule 11).
- Check for Trial Court Discretion: Determine if the trial court has signed an order vacating the prior order or if the “withdrawal” is merely a statement of intent by counsel.
- Verify the Scope: Ensure the “withdrawal” covers not just the specific requests, but “similar” future requests.
- Cite Precedent: Lean heavily on In re Contract Freighters, Inc. regarding the lack of “enforceable assurances.”
Successfully Mooting a Mandamus (for the RPI)
- Execute a Rule 11 Agreement: Draft a formal agreement stating the discovery is withdrawn with prejudice and will not be refiled.
- Obtain an Amended Order: Ask the trial court to sign an order specifically vacating the prior discovery order and denying the motion for discovery with prejudice.
- Provide Covenants: If a Rule 11 is not possible, provide a binding covenant that would be enforceable in a breach of contract action.
- Act Early: Avoid waiting until the “hour the appellate court is looking” to change positions, as courts view late-breaking withdrawals with skepticism.
Citation
In re Solaris Transportation, LLC, Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure, Inc., and Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC, No. 04-25-00819-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 28, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family law, the “net worth” discovery trigger is a common battleground, particularly under the In re Clapp line of cases requiring a prima facie showing of entitlement to exemplary damages before discovery is permitted. If a spouse obtains an order for net worth discovery without meeting the evidentiary burden, and then tries to “withdraw” the request once you file for mandamus, In re Solaris Transportation provides the roadmap to keep the mandamus alive. This prevents the “yo-yo” effect where a spouse withdraws a request to kill a mandamus, only to re-urge the same request six months later when the appellate court is no longer watching. Use this case to demand a Rule 11 agreement that permanently bars the discovery or proceed to a full ruling on the merits of your mandamus.
~~89804806-a4f5-405c-b714-2ee55bad00a4~~
Share this content:
