# IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

## N O



## . 12-0483

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



# R O S E M A R IE 

# P O R R E T T O A N D 

# R A N D Y 

# W

. W IL L IA M S


# , A S 

# C H A P T E R 

# 7 T R U S T E E

O F T H E 

# B A N K R U P T C Y 

# E S T A T E O F 

# S O N Y A 

# P O R R E T T O


# , P E T IT IO N E R S


# ,

v

.



# T E X A S 

# G E N E R A L 

# L A N D 

# O F F IC E A N D 

# J E R R Y 

# P A T T E R S O N


# , IN H IS 

# O F F IC IA L 

# C A P A C IT Y A S 

# T E X A S 

# L A N D 

# C O M M IS S IO N E R


# , R E S P O N D E N T S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## O N 

## P E T I T I O N F O R 

## R E V I E W F R O M T H E 

## C O U R T O F 

## A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

## F I R S T 

## D I S T R I C T O F 

## T E X A S



### 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## Argued Novem ber 5, 2013

C H I E F 

## J U S T I C E 

## H E C H T 

## delivere d the opinion of the Court.

J U S T I C E 

## B O Y D 

## did not participate in the de cision.

The principal issue befor e us is whethe r t h e State’s repe ated rec hara cter ization of private

proper ty as public constitutes a compensa ble taking under Article I

, Section 17(a) of the Texas

Constit ution. Thoug h the State’s conduct is troubling, it is not a taking

. We aff irm the court of 1



## appea ls on that issue, but we reve rs e o n other issues and rema nd the case to the trial court for 2



## rendition of judg ment.

T E X

. C O N S T

. a r t

. I

, § 1 7 ( a ) ( “ N o p e r s o n ’ s p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e t a k e n , d a m a g e d

, o r d e s t r o y e d f o r o r a p p l i e d t o 1

p u b l i c u s e w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e c o m p e n s a t i o n b e i n g m a d e

. . . . ” )

.

3 6 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 6 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 1 )

. 2

## I

A

Fr om the late 1950s throug h the ear ly 1970s, the Porretto family acquir ed 17 trac ts totaling

som e 2 7 ac re s l o cated betwee n the Galveston Seawa ll and the Gulf of Mexi co. The trac ts wer e

orig inally part of an 1838 convey ance of the east end of Galveston by the Republic of Texas to

Michae l B. Menar d. There was no Seawa ll then, of course , and the land convey ed was all dry

, but 3



## much is now submerg ed, including some of the Porrettos’ trac ts. The Porrettos have opera ted one

g roup of tra cts as Porre tto Bea ch, off ering fre e ac cess to the public, c harg ing only for parking and

conce ssions for beac h amenities, like umbrellas, chair s, floats, and boats. The res t o f t h e t racts,

which the Porrettos call Porre tto Bea ch West, are non-contig uous, undevelope d, and far ther down

the beac h. All the proper ty is now in Sony a Porretto’s bankruptc y estate, and the trustee, Randy

Wil liams, and Sony a’s mother, Rosemarie, are petitioners here

. We ref er to petitioners collectively 4



## as the Porre ttos.

The State owns the coasta l la nd submerg ed by the Gulf of Mexi co. Along the Gulf Coast, 5

S e e C i t y o f G a l v e s t o n v

. M e n a r d

, 2 3 T e x

. 3 4 9

, 3 5 7

, 3 8 1 ( 1 8 5 9 )

. 3

H e n r y a n d R o s e m a r i e f i l e d t h i s s u i t i n 2 0 0 2

. A t t h a t t i m e , t h e y o w n e d t h e l a n d

, b u t i n 2 0 0 5

, t h e y s o l d i t t o 4

t h e i r d a u g h t e r , S o n y a , a n d s h e j o i n e d t h e s u i t

. H e n r y d i e d b e f o r e t r i a l

.

S t a t e v

. B r a d

f o r d

, 5 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 0 6 5

, 1 0 6 9 ( T e x

. 1 9 3 2 ) ( “ T h e r u l e l o n g h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t 5

t h e s t a t e i s t h e o w n e r o f t h e s o i l u n d e r l y i n g t h e n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s , s u c h a s n a v i g a b l e s t r e a m s , a s d e f i n e d b y s t a t u t e , l a k e s , b a y s , i n l e t s , a n d o t h e r a r e a s w i t h i n t i d e w a t e r l i m i t s w i t h i n i t s b o r d e r s

. ” ) ; L o r i n o v

. C r a w f o r d P a c k i n g C o

. , 1 7 5 S

. W

. 2 d

4 1 0

, 4 1 3 ( T e x

. 1 9 4 3 ) ( “ T h e s o i l c o v e r e d b y t h e b a y s , i n l e t s , a n d a r m s o f t h e G u l f o f M e x i c o w i t h i n t i d e w a t e r l i m i t s b e l o n g s t o t h e S t a t e , a n d c o n s t i t u t e s p u b l i c p r o p e r t y t h a t i s h e l d i n t r u s t f o r t h e u s e a n d b e n e f

i t o f a l l t h e p e o p l e

. ” )

. T h e
L e g i s l a t u r e h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h e S t a t e ’ s o w n e r s h i p

. S e e T E X

. W A T E R C O D E § 1 1

. 0 2 1 ( a ) ( “ T h e w a t e r o f t h e o r d i n a r y f l o w ,

u n d e r f l o w , a n d t i d e s o f e v e r y f l o w i n g r i v e r , n a t u r a l s t r e a m , a n d l a k e , a n d o f e v e r y b a y o r a r m o f t h e G u l f o f M e x i c o , a n d

t h e s t o r m w a t e r , f

l o o d w a t e r , a n d r a i n w a t e r o f e v e r y r i v e r , n a t u r a l s t r e a m , c a n y o n , r a v i n e , d e p r e s s i o n , a n d w a t e r s h e d i n

t h e s t a t e i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e s t a t e

. ” )

.



### 2

## there are two high tides daily

. I n 1958, we held in Luttes v. State that, b as ed o n Spanish and

Mexi can law applicable when Texas acquir ed its coastlands, the shoreline boundary of State-owne d

s u b m er ged l an d is the mean highe r high tide line (“MHH T”), “the aver ag e of highe st daily water

computed over or corr ecte d to the reg ular tidal cy cle of 18.6 y ear s.” The tidally submerg ed land up 6



## to the MHHT line is the “we t beac h”. Of cou rs e, wa ter often rea ches far ther landwar d, to a line

marke d by veg etation or a chang e in terra in. This are a, though s ometimes submerg ed, is t h e “dry

beac h”, which may be privately owned. The Texas coastline is constantly chang ing by acc retion and

avulsion, and thus the shoreline is a lway s moving. 7



## The State contende d in Luttes that the shoreline was much far ther landwar d, including the

8



## dry beac h, and it has been reluc tant to acc ept the line set in Luttes

. L ess than a y ear afte r that case

was decide d, the L eg islature enac ted the Open Be ache s Act, decla ring it to be the public policy of 9



## this State that the public be allowed acc ess to the Gulf acr oss both the dry beac h and the wet beac h. 1 0

3 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 7

, 1 8 7 ( T e x

. 1 9 5 8 )

. 6

S e v e r a n c e v

. P a t t e r s o n , 3 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 5

, 7 0 8 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 2 ) ( “ O c e a n f r o n t b e a c h e s c h a n g e e v e r y d a y

. O v e r t i m e 7

a n d s o m e t i m e s r a t h e r s u d d e n l y , t h e y s h r i n k o r g r o w , a n d t h e t i d e a n d v e g e t a t i o n l i n e s m a y a l s o s h i f t

. B e a c h f

r o n t p r o p e r t y l i n e s r e t r a c t o r e x t e n d a s p r e v i o u s l y d r y l a n d s b e c o m e s u b m e r g e d o r s u b m e r g e d l a n d s b e c o m e d r y

. ” )

.

L u t t e s , 3 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d a t 1 6 9 ( “ W e a r e n o t c e r t a i n a s t o t h e S t a t e ’ s v i e w o f j u s t w h a t t h i s l i n e i s i n t e r m s o f 8

p r a c t i c a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , b u t t h e c o n t e n t i o n s e e m s t o b e t h a t i t i s e i t h e r t h e h i g h e s t

— m o s t l a n d w a r d

— l i n e r e a c h e d b y t h e

w a t e r s o n a n y o n e o c c a s i o n t h a t c a n b e p r o v e d o r p e r h a p s t h e a v e r a g e o f s i n g l e h i g h e s t a n n u a l l i n e s f o r s u c h y e a r s a s t o

w h i c h p r o o f i s a v a i l a b l e

. ” )

.

A c t o f J u l y 1 6

, 1 9 5 9

, 5 6 t h L e g

. , 2 n d C

. S

. , c h

. 1 9

, 1 9 5 9 T e x

. G e n

. L a w s 1 0 8 ( c u r r e n t l y c o d i f i e d a s T E X

. N A T

. 9

R E S

. C O D E § § 6 1

. 0 0 1

- . 2 5 4 )

.

I d

. § 1 ( “ I t i s h e r e b y d e c l a r e d a n d a f f i r m e d t o b e t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y o f t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e p u b l i c , i n d i v i d u a l l y 10

a n d c o l l e c t i v e l y , s h a l l h a v e t h e f r e e a n d u n r e s t r i c t e d r i g h t o f i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o a n d f r o m t h e s t a t e

- o w n e d b e a c h e s b o r d e r i n g o n t h e s e a w a r d s h o r e o f t h e G u l f o f M e x i c o , o r s u c h l a r g e r a r e a e x t e n d i n g f r o m t h e l i n e o f m e a n l o w t i d e t o

t h e l i n e o f v e g e t a t i o n b o r d e r i n g o n t h e G u l f o f M e x i c o , i n t h e e v e n t t h e p u b l i c h a s a c q u i r e d a r i g h t o f u s e o r e a s e m e n t

t o o r o v e r s u c h a r e a b y p r e s c r i p t i o n , d e d i c a t i o n , o r h a s r e t a i n e d a r i g h t b y v i r t u e o f c o n t i n u o u s r i g h t i n t h e p u b l i c

. ” ) ( c u r r e n t l y T E X

. N A T

. R E S

. C O D E § 6 1

. 0 1 1 ( a ) )

.



### 3

## Howeve r, the Act did not mandate acc ess acr oss privately owned dry beac h proper ty without proof

of some leg al rig ht, and thus the decla ration stopped short of a t ak ing. I n John G. and Marie 1 1 1 2



## Stella Kenedy Mem orial Foundation v. Dewhurst

, which we decide d in 2002, the State reasserte d

its pre- Luttes position that its owner ship of the beac h extends to the veg etation line, the highe st rea ch

of the water

. W e aga i n re j ec ted that position and rea ffirme d Luttes

. J ust two y ear s ag o, in 1 3 1 4



## Seve rance v. Patterson

, the State claimed a “rolling ” public beac hfront ease ment on the dry beac h,

in many respe cts indistinguishable fr om ownership. We re jected tha t claim, citing Luttes

. 1 5



## B

Luttes firmly established in 1958 that the boundary betwee n submerg ed land owne d by the

State and the dry beac h is the MHHT line. For the are a at issue here

, that line is below the Seawa ll,

and the proper

ty convey ed to the Porrettos lies on both sides of the line, some of it in the dry beac h

and so m e i n t h e wet beac h. Fr om 1994 to 2008, the Gene ral L and Offic e vacillated in deny ing,

I d

. § 2 ( “ I n a n y a c t i o n b r o u g h t o r d e f e n d e d u n d e r t h i s A c t o r w h o s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a f f e c t e d b y t h i s A c t a 11

s h o w i n g t h a t t h e a r e a i n q u e s t i o n i s e m b r a c e d w i t h i n t h e a r e a f r o m m e a n l o w t i d e t o t h e l i n e o f v e g e t a t i o n s h a l l b e p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t : ( l ) t h e t i t l e o f t h e l i t t o r a l o w n e r d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e r i g h t t o p r e v e n t t h e p u b l i c f r o m u s i n g t h e a r e a f o r i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o t h e s e a ; ( 2 ) t h e r e h a s b e e n i m p o s e d u p o n t h e a r e a s u b j e c t t o p r o o f o f e a s e m e n t a p r e s c r i p t i v e

r i g h t o r e a s e m e n t i n f

a v o r o f t h e p u b l i c f

o r i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s t o t h e s e a

. ” ) ( c u r r e n t l y T E X

. N A T

. R E S

. C O D E § 6 1

. 0 2 0 ( a ) )

.

S e v e r a n c e , 3 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d a t 7 1 9 ( “ T h e [ O p e n B e a c h e s A c t ] d o e s n o t a l t e r L u t t e s

. I t e n f o r c e s t h e p u b l i c ’ s r i g h t 12

t o u s e t h e d r y b e a c h o n p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y w h e r e a n e a s e m e n t e x i s t s a n d e n f o r c e s p u b l i c r i g h t s t o u s e S t a t e

- o w n e d b e a c h e s

. T h e r e f o r e , t h e O B A

, b y i t s t e r m s , d o e s n o t c r e a t e o r d i m i n i s h s u b s t a n t i v e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s

. T h e s t a t u t e c a n n o t t r u l y b e

s a i d t o c r e a t e a n y n e w r i g h t s

. I n p r o m u l g a t i n g t h e O B A

, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e s e e m e d c a r e f u l t o p r e s e r v e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y

r i g h t s b y e m p h a s i z i n g t h a t t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

p u b l i c u s e o f

p r i v a t e b e a c h f

r o n t p r o p e r t y c a n o c c u r w h e n a h i s t o r i c r i g h t

o f u s e i s r e t a i n e d i n t h e p u b l i c o r i s p r o v e n b y d e d i c a t i o n o r p r e s c r i p t i o n

. ” ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

.

9 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 8

, 2 8 4 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 2 )

. 13

I d

. a t 2 8 1

. 14

S e v e r a n c e , 3 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d a t 7 2 4 ( “ W e h a v e n e v e r h e l d t h e d r y b e a c h t o b e e n c o m p a s s e d i n t h e p u b l i c t r u s t

. 15

S e e L u t t e s

. . . . W e h o l d t h a t T e x a s d o e s n o t r e c o g n i z e a ‘ r o l l i n g ’ e a s e m e n t

. ” )

.



### 4

## acc epting

, and ultimately conce ding the Porrettos’ owner ship of the dry beac h. The materia l events

fall into five categ ories.

GLO’s Renourishment and Rec reation Leases to the City of Galveston. I n 1994, the GL O,

on behalf of the State, executed a ten-y ear lease of “submerg ed lands” to the City of Galveston for

“the deposit of beac h quality sand in and on said subme rge d l an d for beac h reple nishment and

restora tion”. The lease cover ed a larg e are a “adja cent to a nd along the Galveston Seawa ll”. The 1 6



## lease did not define “submerg ed land s ” b u t ca lled for a survey to deter mine “the line of highe st

annual tide”, well landwar d of the MHHT line, thus including the dry beac h. The survey , perf ormed

by Dar rell Shine, located the highe st annual tide line at the Seawa ll over most of t h e are a. All of

Porretto B eac h West was included. The State executed a se cond lea se of the sa me prope rty

to the

City for 20 y ear s “for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a public rec rea tion are a”. Under

the authority of that lease

, the Galveston Park Boa rd in 1999 authorized two conce ssionaires of its

choosing to opera te on Porretto B eac h West.

GLO represe ntatives’ statements. I n 1997, while the City ’s renour ishment projec t was

ong oing, the Park Board ex presse d conce rn t o the GL O t h at p ar t of t he area cover ed by the S hine

survey was privately owned and that the owner s, not the Park Boa rd, would be entitled to beac h

conce ssion revenue s. A GL O staff attorney responde d in a letter a s follows:

As y ou are awa

re, the State, throug h the land office

, has lease d the reple nished beac h

are a in front of the Galveston Seawa ll to the City

. . . . As y ou are further awa re, the
State does not rec og nize any claim of private owner ship of l an d i n fr o n t of the

T h e l e a s e a p p e a r s t o h a v e c o n t e m p l a t e d t h a t a l l t h e l a n d g u l f w a r d o f t h e S e a w a l l w a s “ s u b m e r g e d l a n d ”

, 16

r e c i t i n g t h a t “ [ t ] h e u p l a n d s p r o p e r t y l i t t o r a l t o t h e s u b m e r g e d l a n d s s u b j e c t t o t h i s l e a s e a r e o w n e d b y t h e C o u n t y o f

G a l v e s t o n ”

. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e s u b m e r g e d l a n d b o r d e r e d o n t h e S e a w a l l

.



### 5

## seaw all.

. . . The require ment of the park board that the conce ssionaire obtain

consent of “ce rtain adjac ent proper ty owner s”

. . . ascr ibe[s] some cre dence to these specious claims in derog ation of the State position and are , there fore

, not acc eptable.

A few day s later, the GL O senior deputy commissioner and g ener al counsel wrote an op-ed

article for the Galveston County Daily News set t i n g out the State’s position that it owned the

“Seaw all beac hes” and that conce ssion reve nues belong ed t o the Park Boa rd. “[A]ny attempt to

asser t private proper

ty owner ship in front of the Galveston Seawa ll,” the g ener al counsel wrote, “will

be opposed by the state.” I n a later meeting with Park Boa rd officia ls, the two GL O lawy ers made 1 7



## clea r that “[t] here was no question on the part of the GL O that there [were] no valid private

owner ship claims” to the land seaw ard of the Seawa ll, per the S h i n e s u rv ey

. Much of that land,

including the Porrettos’ prope rty , was dry beac h.

The tax rolls. Part of the Park Boa rd’s conce rn was that proper ty cover ed by the Shine survey

was listed on the tax rolls in the names of private owner s. At the State’s request, the Galveston

County Appra isal District chang ed its rec ords to list the State as the owner of cer tain trac ts, including

part of Porretto Be ach West. Howeve r, the Porretto famil y co n t i n ued to pay the taxes, and the

District continued to ac cept pa y ments. I n 2004, the District re verse d the cha ng es to its recor ds.

T h e g e n e r a l c o u n s e l ’ s a r t i c l e c o r r e c t l y a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t “ [ f ] o r t i d a l l y i n f

l u e n c e d l a n d s , t h e T e x a s S u p r e m e 17

C o u r t h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h e a c t u a l b o u n d a r y t o b e t h e l i n e o f ‘ m e a n h i g h w a t e r ’ o r ‘ m e a n h i g h e r h i g h w a t e r , ’ d e p e n d i n g

o n t h e d a t e o f t h e g r a n t

. ” B u t t h e a r t i c l e i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e S h i n e s u r v e y w a s b a s e d o n m e a n h i g h w a t e r w h e n i t w a s a c t u a l l y b a s e d o n t h e h i g h e s t a n n u a l t i d e

. T h e a r t i c l e a l s o m i s s t a t e d t h a t t h e C o u r t i n C i t y o f G a l v e s t o n v

. M a n n , 1 4 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 0 2 8 ( T e x

. 1 9 4 0 )

, “ f o u n d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n n o f a s t l a n d i n f

r o n t o f t h e s e a w a l l f

o r a p e r i o d i n e x c e s s o f

2 0 y e a r s ”

. T h e C o u r t m a d e n o s u c h f i n d i n g b u t m e r e l y a c c e p t e d t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e C i t y a n d t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l “ t h a t

a f t e r t h e s e a w a l l w a s b u i l t

, a b o u t 1 9 0 5

, t h e h i g h t i d e o f t h e G u l f a b o u t t w e n t y y e a r s a g o c a m e u p t o s a i d s e a w a l l a n d

c o n s t a n t l y s i n c e s a i d t i m e a l l o f t h e l a n d l y i n g o n t h e G u l f s i d e o f t h e s e a w a l l a t t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e p i e r i s i n t e n d e d t o b e b u i l t h a s b e e n w i t h i n t h e h i g h t i d e w a t e r s o f t h e G u l f

. ” I d

. a t 1 0 3 0

. A n d

, o f c o u r s e , M a n n w a s d e c i d e d b e f o r e L u t t e s ,

w h e n s h o r e l i n e b o u n d a r i e s w e r e f i n a l l y d e t e r m i n e d

.



### 6

## Letters from the Land Commissioner and the Attorney Gene ral. I n 1 9 9 9

, Sony a Porretto

explored selling the proper ty

, then owned by her parents, but a potential buy er ex pres s ed co ncer n

about the GL O’s claims

. T o cl arify the GL O’s position, Sony a met sever al times with the GL O,

culminating in a

meeting with the L and Commissi oner himself in 2000. Responding to the issues

she had raised, the Commi ssioner wrote her in 2001 that “the state does not claim title t o natura l

acc retion above the line of Mean Hig h Tide in this particula r are a” and that he was “not awa re of any

clai m b y t h e State of Texas to the proper ty y our family claims (landwa rd of the Mean Hig h Tide

line)”. Meanw hile, Sony a had also raised her issues with the Attorney Gene ral’s Offic e. A few day s

afte r the L and Commi ssioner letter, the Attorney Gene ral wrote t h at “[ t ] h e State does not claim

owner ship of any proper

ty claimed by y our fathe r above the mean high tide line”, althoug h any land

claimed “in front of the Galveston seaw all

. . . is probably subject to a public ease ment”. Both letters

appea red to be inconsistent w ith the GL O’s position up to tha t point. I n any case , later that y ear , 1 8



## a contr act to purc hase the land was sig ned, but fa iled to come to fruition.

This litigat i o n

. I n 2002, afte r Sony a Porretto’s continued eff orts to sell the proper

ty wer e

unsucce ssful, her pare nts sued the GL O and the L and Commi ssioner to establish their owner ship 1 9



## of the proper

ty convey ed to them and for d am age s for a taking

. The plaintiffs did not limit their

claims to the dry beac h; their petition descr ibed the proper ty in dispute as that which had been

B y r e f e r e n c i n g t h e “ m e a n h i g h t i d e l i n e ” r a t h e r t h a n t h e M H H T l i n e , t h e l e t t e r s f r o m t h e L a n d C o m m i s s i o n e r 18

a n d t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l s l i g h t l y u n d e r s t a t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s r i g h t f u l o w n e r s h i p

. T h e M H H T l i n e i s b a s e d o n l y o n t h e h i g h e r

o f t h e t w o d a i l y h i g h t i d e s o n t h e T e x a s c o a s t a n d i s t h e r e f o r e h i g h e r t h a n t h e m e a n h i g h t i d e l i n e , w h i c h i s b a s e d o n b o t h

. I n t h i s a r e a , t h e d i f

f e r e n c e i s a b o u t 0

. 1 f

o o t v e r t i c a l l y , s e e W i l l i a m G a r d n e r W i n t e r s , J r

. , T h e S h o r e l i n e f

o r S p a n i s h a n d

M e x i c a n G r a n t s i n T

e x a s
, 3 8 T E X

. L

. R E V

. 5 2 3

, 5 3 0 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( c i t i n g T e x a s S u r v e y o r s A s s ’ n , R e p o r t o f R i p a r i a n B o u n d a r

y C o m m i t t e e ( M a r

. 2 1

, 1 9 5 7 ) )

, a n d a b o u t f i v e t o t e n f

e e t h o r i z o n t a l l y

.

T h e p l a i n t i f

f s a l s o s u e d t h e P a r k B o a r d a n d i t s e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r

. 19



### 7

## convey ed to them, on both sides of the MHHT line

. T h e d ef endants denied the claims without

limit ing their denial to the wet beac h. Notwithstanding the statements by the L and Commi ssioner

and the Attorney Gene ral, who repr esente d the defe ndants in the litigation, the defe ndants stated in

a brief filed in 2003 that “the GL O asser ts title to the disputed proper ty and does so on behalf of the

State of Texas.”

But then, in 2004, the parties settled, with the GL O ag ree ing to provide “a letter confirming

that the State of Texas claims no owner ship interest in [P orre tto Be ach] above the mean highe r high

water line”. Not long after the agr eeme nt was reac hed, the GL O re fused to produc e the letter

, the

settlement failed, and the litigation resumed. Def endants’ counsel wrote to the trial court that “the 2 0



## State of Texas, throug h its Gene ral L and Offic e, does claim title to the proper ty at issue” (empha sis

in the orig inal).

The trial court dismiss ed the action in 2005, based on the defe ndants’ asser tion of immunit y ,

but the court of appea ls reve rsed and rema nded in 2007. T h e co u rt wr ote, contra ry to the 2 1



## defe ndants’ cl ai m s to the Porrettos’ proper ty in the trial court, that the defe ndants had not

“contr overt[ed] the Porrettos’ alleg ations of owner ship of the land in question, and have challeng ed

the Porrettos’ claims without reg ard to the truth of their claim of owner ship.” I n their motion for 2 2



## rehe aring , the def

endants took issue with the cour t’s statement:

T h e l e t t e r w a s o n l y o n e p a r t o f a s e t t l e m e n t i n t e n d e d t o f a c i l i t a t e d e v e l o p m e n t o f P o r r e t t o B e a c h

. T h e j u r y 20

l a t e r f o u n d t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t s h a d n o t f

a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e s e t t l e m e n t

.

P o r r e t t o v

. P a t t e r s o n , 2 5 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 1

, 7 0 5 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 7

, n o p e t

. )

. 21

I d

. a t 7 0 9

. 22



### 8

## The majority opinion states that it is unclea r whether the State claims the proper ty at issue or disputes the Porrettos’ title and notes the State Appellee s’ failure to prese nt evidenc e on this point. Howeve r, such a showing wa s unnece ssary

. The P orre ttos established the exis tence of a proper ty dispute betwee n the Porrettos and the State.
The Porrettos’ petition asser ted that the State claimed title adver sely to them, attaching the state-owne d submerg ed land lease s that evidenc ed the State’s claim to

own such land. The State Appel l ees did not challeng e this alleg ation beca use it is

true.

That motion was filed in J anuar y 2008. I n May

, following rema nd, defe ndants’ counsel

wrote plaintiffs’ counsel that “the State does not claim title to any proper ty [i n Porretto Be ach] that

is above, or landwar d of, the mean highe r high tide line.” Refer encing the 2001 letters from the L and

Commi ssioner and the Att orney Gene ral, defenda

nts’ counsel stated that “the St ate’ s position has

alway s been that it intended to claim only the state-owne d submerg ed land”, as ref lected in the 2004

settlement. Counsel did not explain why

, if that had alway s been the State’s position, the GL O had

ref used to provide the le tter to that eff ect pr omised in the settlement. 2 3



## C

The trial court g rante d summary judgme nt confirming the Porrettos’ owner ship of Porretto

Be ach a nd Porretto B eac h West from the Seawa ll to the MHHT line. F ollowing a bench tr ial, the

court further decla

red the Porrettos to be the owner s of the proper ty seaw ard of the MHHT line, and

held that the State’s actions had resulted in a compensa ble taking

. The court awa rded the Porrettos

$5.012 milli on as dama g es for the lost market value of the prope rty taken, a s found by

a jury

.

The court of appea ls reve rsed and rende red, holding that the trial court should have dismiss ed

T h e P o r r e t t o s a d d e d a c l a i m f o r b r e a c h o f

t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t

. T h e d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d e d a t t r i a l t h a t 23

t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n t o f

u r n i s h a l e t t e r c o n f

i r m i n g t h e P o r r e t t o s ’ t i t l e a b o v e t h e M H H T l i n e w a s n e v e r t r i g g e r e d b e c a u s e o f

t h e P o r r e t t o s ’ f

a i l u r e t o p e r f

o r m t h e i r o w n o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t

. T h e j u r y f a i l e d t o f

i n d t h a t d e f

e n d a n t s b r e a c h e d t h e a g r e e m e n t

.



### 9

## the Porrettos’ title claims for want of jurisdicti on, and that the State’s actions did not constitute a

taking

. We gr anted the Porr ettos’ petition for re view.

2 4 2 5



## II

A

Be fore we c an dete rmine whe ther the G L O’s conduct constituted a compensable taking of

the P orre ttos’ proper

ty

, we must deter

mine what property

the Porrettos own. The answe r is clea r,

and it was just as clea

r in 1994: the Porrettos own the proper ty convey ed to them that lies landwar d

of the MHHT line. The GL O has finally conce ded this and now ar gu es t hat beca use it has, no

justiciable controve rsy rema ins, and the trial court there fore lacke d jurisdiction over the issue. But

g iven the GL O’s tenac ious dispute of the Porrettos’ owner ship befor e and during this litiga tion, in

t h e fa ce o f Luttes and even afte r the L and Commi ssioner’s and the Attorney Gene ral’s written

statements, the trial court was justified in resolving the issue once and for all. I t err ed, howeve r, in

awa rding the Porrettos land seaw ard of the MHHT line, and the Porrettos conce de that point. Under

clea r law and the parties’ conce ssions, no title dispute rema ins. The law is equally well-settled that

the Porrettos are entitled to judgme nt se ttling their title only ag ainst the L and Commi ssioner, not 2 6

3 6 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 6

, 2 8 6

, 2 8 8

- 2 8 9 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 1 )

. 24

5 6 T e x

. S u p

. C t

. J

. 6 1 2 ( J u n e 7

, 2 0 1 3 )

. 25

S e e S t a t e v

. L a i n , 3 4 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 9

, 5 8 1 ( T e x

. 1 9 6 1 ) ( “ W h e n s u i t f o r r e c o v e r y o f t i t l e t o a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f 26

l a n d

, f i l e d w i t h o u t l e g i s l a t i v e c o n s e n t

, i s n o t a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e i t s e l f

, b u t i s a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l s o n l y , t h e m e r e a s s e r t i o n b y p l e a d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m t i t l e o r r i g h t o f p o s s e s s i o n a s o f f i c i a l s o f t h e s t a t e a n d o n b e h a l f o f t h e s t a t e , w i l l

n o t b a r p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e s u i t

. . . . O n e w h o t a k e s p o s s e s s i o n o f a n o t h e r ’ s l a n d w i t h o u t l e g a l r i g h t i s n o l e s s a t r e s p a s s e r b e c a u s e h e i s a s t a t e o f

f i c i a l o r e m p l o y e e , a n d t h e o w n e r s h o u l d n o t b e r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n l e g i s l a t i v e c o n s e n t t o i n s t i t u t e

a s u i t t o o u s t h i m s i m p l y b e c a u s e h e a s s e r t s a g o o d f a i t h b u t o v e r z e a l o u s c l a i m t h a t t i t l e o r r i g h t o f p o s s e s s i o n i s i n t h e

s t a t e a n d t h a t h e i s a c t i n g f o r a n d o n b e h a l f o f t h e s t a t e

. ” ) ; T e x

. P a r k s a n d W i l d l i

f e D e p ’ t v

. S a w

y e r T r u s t

, 3 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d

3 8 4

, 3 9 3

- 3 9 4 ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s ’ c l a i m s o f S t a t e o w n e r s h i p

— a l t h o u g h n o t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t a k i n g

—



### 1 0

## ag ainst the GL O. 2 7



## Finally

, it is clea

r that the owner ship of shorelands is not chang ed by artificia lly adding sand,

which the City of Galveston did in its renour ishment projec t. The State does not g ain the dry beac h

b y d u m p i ng sand on it, nor does it lose what was befor e the wet beach, even if the renourishmen t

pushes the MHHT line f

arthe r sea war d, which is usually

the purpose of

renour ishment. 2 8



## B

The Porrettos arg ue t h at t h e GL O’s claims have made it impossibl e for them to sell their

proper ty and there fore amount to a compensa ble taking

. Specifica lly

, the Porret t o s p o i nt to the

statements made by two GL O lawy ers in 1997, the State’s reque st for a chang e in the tax rec ords to

show it a s the owner of the proper ty

, and the defe ndants’ persistenc e in a position at the beg inning

of this liti g ation contra dicted by previous stateme nts of the L and Commi ssioner and the Attorne y

Gene ral. Wit h respe ct to Porr etto Be ach West, the Porrettos also complain of the State’s lease s of

the prope rty

to the City

of Ga lveston for be ach r enourishment and public r ecr eation.

The GL O lawy ers’ statements reg arding the State’s owner ship of proper ty above the MHHT

line wer e simply not binding on the S tate. They wer e no more than expressions of their opinions,

c o n s t i t u t e d “ p o s s e s s i o n ” f o r p u r p o s e s o f L a i n , a n d r e m a n d i n g t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l l o w s u i t t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s t

“ t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t o r s l a y i n g c l a i m t o t h e s t r e a m b e d ” ) ( c i t i n g L a i n , 3 4 9 S

. W

. 2 d a t 3 8 1

- 3 8 3 ) ; s e e a l s o i d

. a t 3 9 5 ( J e f f e r s o n , J

. , c o n c u r r i n g ) ( “ I n L a i n , w e m a d e c l e a r t h a t a g o v e r n m e n t a c t o r i s n o t i m m u n e f r o m a t r e s p a s s

- t o

- t r y

- t i t l e

s u i t

. . . . ” )

.

S e e i d

. a t 3 9 0 ( h o l d i n g t h a t c l a i m s b r o u g h t d i r e c t l y a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e t o d e t e r m i n e t i t l e t o r e a l p r o p e r t y a r e

2 7

b a r r e d b y s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y )

.

L o r i n o v

. C r a w

f o r d P a c k i n g C o

. , 1 7 5 S

. W

. 2 d 4 1 0

, 4 1 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 4 3 ) ( “ A c c r e t i o n s a l o n g t h e s h o r e s o f t h e G u l f 28

o f M e x i c o a n d b a y s w h i c h h a v e b e e n a d d e d b y a r t i f i c i a l m e a n s d o n o t b e l o n g t o t h e u p l a n d o w n e r s , b u t r e m a i n t h e

p r o p e r t y o f t h e S t a t e

. ” )

.



### 1 1

## opinions later contra dicted b y t h eir superiors. Even if they had been statements on behalf of the

GL O itself, such asser

tions of owner ship would not have constituted a taking in these circ umstances.

I n T ex a s Parks and W

ildlif e Departme nt v. Sawyer Trust

, we conclude d that a state ag ency ’s

asser tions of ownership of pr operty did not of themselves constitute a taking of the proper ty when

the ag ency had not attempted to take possession of the proper ty

. The Porrettos’ contention would 2 9



## be strong er if the GL O had authorized its law y ers to a ssert cla ims to t he prope rty in bad fa ith with

the go al of obtaining a benef it to itself. But even though the lawy ers’ statements injured the

3 0



## Porrettos, as the jury

found, and w ere err oneous, they did not rise to the level of a taking

.

Nor did the GL O’s reque st to the taxi ng authorities to list the State as owner of the Porrettos’

proper ty

. The decision to make the chang e rested with the taxi ng authorities. I n Hearts Bluff Game

Ranch, Inc. v. State

, we conclude d that the State’s reque st t h at an o t h er g overnme nt ag ency take

action, without more, is not a taking beca use “[m] ere co m m unications without authority are not

actionable ”. 3 1



## Since reve rsing position in the trial court, the defe ndants have n o t explained the basis for

their initial claim to owner ship of the proper ty above the MHHT l i n e. But asser ting and then

abandoning a position in litigation is not itself a taking

, espec ially when the asser tion is unsucce ssful.

3 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 8 4

, 3 9 1

- 3 9 2 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 1 )

. 29

C f

. S t a t e v

. B i g g a r , 8 7 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 1 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e ’ s d e n i a l o f a r o u t i n e e a s e m e n t 30

e x c h a n g e i n o r d e r t o m i n i m i z e t h e c o s t o f c o n d e m n i n g a l a r g e r t r a c t a m o u n t e d t o a t a k i n g ) ; T a u b v

. C i t

y o f D e e r P a r k

, 8 8 2 S

. W

. 2 d 8 2 4

, 8 2 6

– 8 2 7 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 4 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a c i t y ’ s f a i l u r e t o r e

- z o n e p r o p e r t y w a s n o t a r e g u l a t o r y t a k i n g

a b s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c i t y w a s a c t i n g f o r i t s o w n a d v a n t a g e ) ; W e s t g a t e L t d

. v

. S t a t e , 8 4 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 4 8

, 4 5 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o a d d r e s s “ w h e t h e r a l a n d o w n e r m a y s t a t e a c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r i n v e r s e c o n d e m n a t i o n w h e r e t h e c o n d e m n i n g

a u t h o r i t y a c t s i n b a d f

a i t h t o c a u s e e c o n o m i c d a m a g e t o t h e l a n d o w n e r ” )

.

3 8 1 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 8

, 4 8 9 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 2 )

. 31



### 1 2

## Be sides these actions by the GL O, with respe ct to Porretto Be ach West, the Porrettos arg ue

that the R enourishment L ease and the Recre ati o n L ea se covering proper ty the S tate does not own

constituted a taking

. But the “exclusive purpose” of the Renourishment L ease was “the deposit of

beac h quality sand in and on said submerg ed land for beac h reple nishment and re s t o ra t i o n,

something which benef

itted the Porrettos and to which they did not object. The Recre ation L ease ,

too, did not injure the Porrettos, since the y wer e alr eady

using the ir proper

ty for public rec rea tion,

and they make no claim for damag es based on the Park Boa rd’s actions. Thoug h the lease s may have

involved a claim o f owner ship by the State, the State did not attempt to exercise possession or

control of the pr operty

to the Porrettos’ exclusion.

The Porrettos arg ue that “States eff ect a taking if they rec hara cter ize as public proper ty what

was previously private proper ty ”, quoting from the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Stop

the B ea ch Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection

. But the 3 2



## rec hara cter ization to which the opinion ref err ed was, the littoral owner s arg ued, eff ecte d by a state

court’s interpre tation, in an administrative appea l, of a s t at e statute. The statement has no

application her e.

We are mindful that Article I , Section 17 of the Te x as Constitut ion require s compensa tion

for private proper

ty “dama g ed” as well as “take n”. And we find troubling the defe ndants’ continued

asser tion of claims it later abandone d, h av i n g been made awa re of the Porrettos’ contention that

those claims wer e im pedi n g the s ale of the P orre ttos’ proper ty

. But as we have said, mere claims

5 6 0 U

. S

. 7 0 2 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ( c i t i n g W e b b ’ s F a b u l o u s P h a r m a c i e s
, I n c

. v

. B e c k w i t h

, 4 4 9 U

. S

. 1 5 5

, 32

1 6 3

- 1 6 5 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e F l o r i d a S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n d i d n o t c o n t r a v e n e t h e e s t a b l i s h e d p r o p e r t y r i g h t s

o f p e t i t i o n e r ’ s m e m b e r s )

.



### 1 3

## do not rise to the level of action requiring compensa tion under the Constit ution. We conclude that

the Porrettos ar e not entitled to preva il on their taking claim.

III

Two issues re main.

First: The Porrettos challeng e the constitutionalit y of the Open Be ache s Act, contending that

the C ity of Galveston’s use of it to require a permit for sand scra ping or remova l opera

tes ex post

fac to be cause they owned their proper ty befor e the Act was passed. The court of appea ls he ld tha t

the P orre ttos’ as-a

pplied challeng e was not ripe because they have not shown th at t h ey have been

denied the require d permit or otherwise been ref used permission for perf

orming sand s c r a

p ing. The 3 3



## Porrettos have failed to show that any vested rig ht has been injured or even threa tened. The court 3 4



## of appe als was c orre ct.

Second: Porretto contends that the court of appea ls err ed by reve rsing the trial court’s awa rd

of $19,349.52 in attorney fee s and expenses as discovery sanctions ag ainst the defe ndants.

Def endants ag ree d to produce documents reque sted by the Porrettos at the GL O’s office s. Whil e

GL O lawy ers did produce a substantial number of documents at the appointed time, they informed

3 6 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t 2 8 9 ( c i t i n g W a c o I n d e p

. S c h

. D i s t

. v

. G i b s o n , 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 9

, 8 5 1

- 8 5 2 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 0 ) ) ; s e e a l s o 33

M a y h e w v

. T

o w n o f S u n n y v a l e , 9 6 4 S

. W

. 2 d 9 2 2

, 9 2 9 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , i n o r d e r f o r “ a s

- a p p l i e d ” d u e

p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e s t o b e r i p e i n a l a n d

- u s e r e g u l a t i o n c a s e , t h e r e m u s t b e a “ f i n a l d e c i s i o n ” r e g a r d i n g

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t o t h e p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e ) ; c f

. C i t y o f D a l l a s v

. V

S C

, L L C

, 3 4 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 1

, 2 3 3 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 1 ) ( h o l d i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a s t a t u t o r y r e m e d y , t h a t p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o p u r s u e , p r e c l u d e d a t a k i n g s c l a i m f o r v e h i c l e s

s e i z e d b y t h e c i t y ) ( “ I n g e n e r a l

, f o r a f e d e r a l t a k i n g s c l a i m t o b e r i p e , t h e o w n e r o f t h e a l l e g e d l y t a k e n p r o p e r t y m u s t ( 1 )

o b t a i n a f

i n a l d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t o t h e p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e f r o m t h e g o v e r n m e n t e n t i t y

c h a r g e d w i t h i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d ( 2 ) u t i l i z e s t a t e p r o c e d u r e s f o r o b t a i n i n g j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n

. ” )

.

S e e G i b s o n , 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 8 5 2 ( “ A c a s e i s n o t r i p e w h e n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s a c o n c r e t e 34

i n j u r y d e p e n d s o n c o n t i n g e n t o r h y p o t h e t i c a l f a c t s , o r u p o n e v e n t s t h a t h a v e n o t y e t c o m e t o p a s s

. ” )

.



### 1 4

## the Porrettos’ counsel that no sear ch for all responsive documents in the GL O’s rec ords had y et been

made, nor would one be made without further specific ation of documents reque sted. The Porrettos’

co u n sel wer e forc ed to make a second trip to the GL O’s office s to revie w other documents. Th e

Porrettos moved for attorney fee s and expenses as sanctions, and defe ndants did not respond. After

a hear ing, the trial court awa rded the Porrettos the sanctions reque sted. Def endants then moved for

rec onsideration, the Porrettos responde d, and the trial court conducte d two additional hear ings. The

trial court r efuse d to set aside its order

.

Rule 196.3(c) provides that a party responding to a reque st for production “must either

produce documents . . . as they are kept in the usual course of business or org anize and labe l them

t o co rr es p o n d with the cate g ories in the reque st.” Def endants arg ue that they produce d th e 3 5



## reque sted documents by allowing them to be retrie ved from the vast rec ords kept by the GL O, and

the court of appea ls a g ree d. But the GL O’s production of some rec ords and its a cknowledg ment 3 6



## that it had more somewher e, for which it had made no sear ch, was no response to the reque st. The

Porrettos arg

ued, and the trial court could have found, t h at t h i s wa s n ot a situation in which

defe ndants had located potentially responsive do c u me n ts

, e v e n th o u g h v o lu

mi n o u s , f o r the Porrettos’

revie w, but was instead a situation in which the defe ndants had made no rea sonable eff ort to locate

responsive documents. Def endants arg ued to the trial court that the discovery reque st c ame late in

the l itigation, that it was broa d, that all the documents wer e eventually tender ed, and that at worst

the problem was a miscommunication. But the defe ndants did not seek a more specific proce ss for

T E X

. R

. C IV

. P

. 1 9 6

. 3 ( c )

. 35

3 6 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 6

, 2 8 9

- 2 9 0 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 1 )

. 36



### 1 5

## production in response to the reque st, and d i d n o t ev en respond to the motion for sanctions. The

sanction wa s well within the trial court’s discr etion. 3 7



## IV

We reve rse the court of appea ls’ judgme nt dismiss ing the Porrettos’ title claims and deny ing

discovery sanctions, aff

irm the judgme nt in all other respe cts, and rema nd the case to the trial court

for r endition of judg ment in acc ordanc e with this opinion.

Nathan L . Hec ht
Chief J ustice

Opinion delivere d: J uly

3, 2014

C f

. C h e v r o n P h i l l i

p s C h e m

. C o

. L P v

. K i n g w o o d C r o s s r o a d s
, L

. P

. , 3 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 7

, 7 8 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n 37
[ 1 4 t h D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 1

, p e t

. d e n i e d ) ( c o n c l u d i n g , w i t h o u t a d d r e s s i n g t h e a m o u n t o f t h e s a n c t i o n , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t

a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n b a s i n g a n a w a r d o n e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t l i t i g a n t f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e a l l r e q u e s t e d e

- m a i l s o n a

s u b j e c t

, a n d t h a t l i t i g a n t h a d c o m m u n i c a t e d

, a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h e s e a r c h

, t h a t i t d i d n o t i n t e n d t o f u l l y c o m p l y w i t h a n o r d e r i s s u e d t o a i d i n d i s c o v e r y o f e

- m a i l ) ; T e x a c o
, I n c

. v

. D o m i n g u e z , 8 1 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 5 1

, 4 5 8 ( T e x

. A p p

. — S a n A n t o n i o 1 9 9 1

,

o r i g

. p r o c e e d i n g ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g p a r t y t o p r o v i d e m o r e r e s p o n s i v e

a n s w e r s )

.



### 1 6