1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

_________________ 

NO. 09-17-00416-CV 

_________________ 

IN RE STEPHEN MORRIS 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Original Proceeding 

410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas 

 Trial Cause No. 14-05-05365-CV 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 On October 4, 2017, the trial court ordered Stephen Morris, a non-party, to 

make a diligent search and produce all documents responsive to the subpoena duces 

tecum of the real party in interest, Total Rod Concepts, Inc. (“TRC”), at a location 

in the city where Morris resides. In two issues presented in a petition for a writ of 

mandamus, Morris contends the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and 

abused its discretion by compelling production in compliance with a subpoena that 

violated the mileage limitations for a subpoena issued to a non-party. We stayed the 

trial court’s order and TRC filed a response to Morris’s mandamus petition. 
2 

 TRC filed a notice of service of document subpoena. See generally Tex. R. 

Civ. P. 205.2. The subpoena summoned Morris to appear in Houston and produce 

documents. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 205.1(d). It was served on Morris in 

Goliad, Texas. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.5. No motion to quash was filed. 

After the time for compliance with the subpoena expired, TRC filed a motion to 

compel production. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.8(a). On October 4, 2017, the 

trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to compel. No record of the hearing 

has been filed in this original proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2). At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court signed an order compelling production of 

documents in Goliad, the city where Morris resides and was served with the 

subpoena. 

 Morris argues that the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because 

he is not a party to the lawsuit. He further contends the subpoena is void because it 

compelled him to travel 166 miles to produce documents in the City of Houston, 

which he argues exceeds the distance limitation on subpoenas. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 

176.3(a) (“A person may not be required by subpoena to appear or produce 

documents or other things in a county that is more than 150 miles from where the 

person resides or is served”). TRC argues Morris’s compliance with the subpoena 

was required under the rules that allow discovery from non-parties. See generally 
3 

Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(a), (c), 205.1. It further contends the plain language of Rule 

176.3 permits requiring production in response to a subpoena anywhere in any 

county with a border located within 150 miles of Morris’s residence in Goliad. At 

the hearing on TRC’s motion to compel, at which Morris appeared, the trial court 

modified the location at which Morris was to produce the documents to allow 

production in the county of his residence. 

 A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be issued to correct 

a clear abuse of discretion when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. See In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). After 

reviewing the petition, the response, and the appendices, we conclude that Morris 

has not established that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering him 

to produce documents in Goliad, Texas. Accordingly, we lift our stay order of 

October 31, 2017, and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.8(a). 

PETITION DENIED. 

 PER CURIAM 

Submitted on November 13, 2017 

Opinion Delivered December 7, 2017 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.