Crosstex Energy Services, Lp, Crosstex, Lig, Llc And Crosstex Processing Services, Llc v. Texas Brine Company, Llc, Et Al.

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP,
CROSSTEX, LIG, LLC AND CROSSTEX
PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC
VS.
TEXAS
BRINE COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.
No. 2022-CC-00375
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN R
E: Texas Brine Company, LLC - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Ce
rtiorari, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Number(s) 34202,
Co
urt of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2021 CW 1191;
_ _
_ _ _ _
Ap
ril 13, 2022
W
rit application granted. See per cur iam.
JBM
JDH
SJC
JTG
PDG
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would deny.
Crain, J., recused.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 13, 2022
04/13/2022 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2022-CC-00375
CRO
SSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, CROSSTEX, LIG, LLC AND
CROSSTEX PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC
VS.
TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Assumption
PE
R CURIAM
Wri
t granted. It is well-settled that trial courts have broad discretion in ruling
on discovery matters. Belonga v. Crescent City Dodge, L.L.C., et al., 00-3419 (La.
3/9/01), 781 So. 2d 1247, citing Adams v. Deaton, Inc., 97–1237 (La.6/30/97), 696
So. 2d 997. It is equally well-settled that a trial court’s ruling “will not be disturbed
on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.” Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.,
93-783 (La. 1/14/94), 631 So. 2d 401; Laburre v. East Jefferson General Hospital,
et al., 555 So.2d 1381, 1385 (La. 1990).
The trial court in the instant matter conducted an in-camera inspection of the
documents at issue, and, based on that inspection, ordered the production of five
documents, without redactions. The court of appeal vacated that judgment without
reasons, although the dissent makes clear that it did so without reviewing the
documents. Crosstex Energy Servs., LP v. Texas Brine Co., LLC. , 2021-CW-1191
(La. App. 1 Cir. 2/2/22)( unpub.)(Welch, J., dissents and “would have Occidental
Chemical Corporation file the five documents in question under seal with this court
for in camera inspection and determination on the merits.”).
Because there is no showing that the trial court abused its broad discretion in
this discovery dispute, the court of appeal erred in vacating its judgment. The ruling
04/13/22

of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court’s August 21, 2021 judgment is
hereby reinstated. This matter is remanded for further proceedings.