### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00215
- CV

In Re Permian Highway Pipeline LLC and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator s Permian Highway Pipelines LLC and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline
LLC have filed a petiti on for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary relief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10(a). The Court has received responses from the re spondent trial
court and real party in interest Ele c tro Purification, LLC . The Court had specifically requested that respondent address relators ’ assertion that the tri al court has refused to schedule a hearing by teleconference or videoconference on the temporary injunction, in contravention of the Texas Supreme Court’s guidance that temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions remain
essenti al functions even during the current COVID

- 19 crisis, and instead has postponed the hearing indefinitely. See https://www.txcourts.gov/media/coronavirus

- covid

- 19

- court

- operation

guidance/ at Guid ance Issued 3/5/2020 , 3/12/2020, & 3/26/2020 (explain ing that essential proceedings “ that must occur in the first 7 days ” i n clude “ temp or ary restraining orders/temporary injun ctions ” b u t recommending that in

- person proceed ings be de layed u ntil at le ast May 8 and2

that essential proceedings occur in person only if holding proceeding remotely is not possible or feasible). In it s response , the trial court has given assurances tha t it is w orking toward acquiring the technological capability to cond uct an evidentiary hearing remotely , whi le adequately ensuring the pa rties ’ rights to a hearing that complies with the court ’ s rules

. W e recognize that these are unprecedented circumstan ces and t ha t the tri al court may need additional time to pu t an appropriate system in place to successfully hold a remote ev identiar y hearing inv olving multiple law firms and attorneys , numerous l itiga nts , and the submission of evidence.
See https://www.txcourts.gov/media/coronavirus

- covid

- 19

- court

- operation

- guidance/ at Guidance Issued 4/2/2020, Recommendations & Ti ps on Holding Zoom Vir tual Hearings (providing information available from the Office of Court Administration on Zoom licenses and other re sources for help with conduct i ng remo te proceedings ). We are also sympathetic t o the
t rial court ’ s con cern that i t no t endanger essential staff who fall into th e category o f people who

are most at risk from an in

- person hearing

. Our concern is that “ mandamus is avai la ble to remedy a temp orary restraining order that violates Rule 6 80 ’ s time limitations ” and that the

e xte nsion order at issue here violates Rule 680 by extending the te mp orary restraining order indefinitely. In re Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Com m ’ n , 85 S.W.3d 201, 20 7 (Tex. 2002) ( holding trial court abused its discre tion by g ranting extension of tempor a ry restr aining order for more than sole fourteen

- day extension allowed by Texas Rule of Civil Proc e dure 680).

However, g iven the extenuating circumstances presented by the C OVID

- 19 cr isis and the trial court ’s assuran ce that i t is not refusing to have t h e h earing but instead inten ds to have the hearing remotely as soon as it is technologically feasible, we cannot conclude that the trial c ourt has abused its discretion at this point. We note that t he trial court s i gned the init ial3

temporary restraining o r der on March 12, and only 22 days have passed since that date

. Because the t rial court ’ s ext ension order does not provide a mechanism by which the parties may prompt a hearing when the trial court has acquired the neces sary tech nol ogical capabilities , t he Co u rt orders relators and real party in interest to confer with the trial court next wee k on the st atu s of its technological capabilities and to file a joint status report pro vi ding the Court with an update (includi ng a n exp ected hearing date if one has b e en set ) on or before April 10, 2020.

Relators ’ emergency motion and petition f or writ of mandamus remain pending before the Court.

It is ordered on April 3, 2020.

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith