In the

Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00106-CV

The City of San Fii/\ncisco,DennisJ. Herrera in his official
CAPACITY AS City Attorney for the City of San Francisco,and
Edward Reiskin in his official capacity as Director of
Transportation for the San Francisco MunicipyVl

Transportation Agency,Appellants
V.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Appellee

The City of Oaki^and,Matthew F.Pawa,Barbara].Parker,and
SABRINA B.LANDRETH,Appellants
V.

Exxon Mobil Corpor.\tion, Appellee

 County of San Mateo,County of Marin,City of Imperial Beach,

City of Santa Cruz,County of Santa Cruz,John Beiers,Serge
DedinA,Jennifer Lyon,Brian Washington,Dana McRae,
Anthony Condotti,John Maltbie,Andy Hall,Matthew Hymel,
Carlos Palacios,and Martin Bernal,Appellants
V.

Exxon Mobil Corporation,Appellee

On Appeal from the 96th District Court
Tarrant County,Texas
Trial Court No.096-297222-18

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell,JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
Concurring Memorandum Opinion by ChiefJustice Sudderth

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a Rule 202 petition in Texas state
court seeking presuit discovery to evaluate potential claims for constitutional

violations, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy against several California counties,
cities, and government officials, and against Matthew Pawa, who is two of the cities'
Massachusetts-based outside counsel. Exxon's potential claims arise from an alleged

conspiracy by Pawa and these California counties and cities to use tort suits filed in

California state court to suppress Exxon's Texas-based speech and associational
activities regarding climate change. Exxon claims that in the California litigation, the
counties and cities alleged facts against the Texas energj' sector that contradict their

bond-offering disclosures. Exxon thus seeks presuit discovery to determine whether
the California suits were baseless and brought in bad faith as a pretext to suppress the
Texas energy sector's Texas-based speech and associational activities regarding climate

change and to gain access to documents that Exxon keeps in Texas.
Pawa and the California cities, counties, and officials filed special appearances
challenging Texas's personal jurisdiction over them. This interlocutory appeal arises
from the denial of those special appearances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a)(7). Because the potential defendants lack the requisite minimum contacts
with Texas to be subject to personal jurisdiction here, we will reverse the trial court's
order and render judgment denying Exxon's Rule 202 petition.

 I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Parties to the Rule 202 petition

Exxon is incorporated under the laws of New Jersey and has its principal place
of business in Texas, with its corporate headquarters in Irving, Texas. Exxon
formulates and issues its climate-change statements from its headquarters. The

majority of its climate-change-related corporate records are located in Texas, and
Exxon engages in speech and associational activities in Texas.
The cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Imperial Beach, and Santa Cruz are in
California, as are the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz. These cities and

counties do not maintain a registered agent, telephone listing, or post-office box in
Texas. They are potential defendants in Exxon's anticipated suit.
Certain officials of these California cities and counties are also potential
defendants: Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's City Attorney; Barbara Parker, Oakland's

City' Attorney; John Beiers, San Mateo County's County Counsel; Brian Washington,
Marin County's County Counsel; Dana McRae, Santa Cruz County's County Counsel;

Serge Dedina, Imperial Beach's Mayor;Jennifer Lyon, Imperial Beach's City Attorney
(and an attorney with the California law firm of McDougal, Love, Boehmer, Foley,
Lyon & Canlas); and Anthony Condotti, Santa Cruz's City Attorney (and managing

partner of the California law firm Atchison, Barisone & Condotti).
Other officials of each city and county are prospective witnesses only: Edward
Rciskin, the Director of Transportation for the San Francisco Municipal

 Transportation Agency; Sabrina Landreth, Oakland's City Administrator; John

Maltbie, San Mateo County's County Manager; Matthew Hymel, Marin County's
County Administrator; Carlos Palacios, the Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer;

Gary Andrew Hall, Imperial Beach's City Manager; and Martin Bernal, Santa Cruz's
City Manager.

AU these individual potential defendants and prospective witnesses are, perhaps
obviously, California residents. None of the individual potential defendants maintains
an office or registered agent in Texas. Similarly, none of the prospective witnesses
maintains a registered agent, telephone listing, or post-office box in Texas.
Potential defendant Pawa—the lone non-Califomian—^is a Massachusetts

resident and attorney. He practices law in the Newton, Massachusetts office of
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Pawa is not licensed to practice law
in Texas. In addition to being a potential defendant, Pawa is Oakland's and San
Francisco's outside counsel.

B. The La JoUa conference on cHmate change, Pawa's climate-litigation
strategy, and the Rockefeller Family Fund meeting
In June 2012, Pawa, a climate-change litigator, attended the '^Workshop on

Climate Accountabilit}', Public Opinion, and Legal Strategies" in La JoUa, California.
Among the conference organizers was Peter Frumhoff, the Director of Science and
Policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 At the conference, Pawa spoke about one of his pending cases against the
energy industry seeking damages for coastal flooding allegedly caused by
anthropogenic climate change. According to him, "Exxon and the other defendants

[in that case] distorted the truth." Pawa also stated that litigation is not only a remedy
for those suffering the effects of climate change but also "a potentially powerful
means to change corporate behavior."

Conference participants discussed strategies for getting energy companies'
internal documents and concluded that law-enforcement powers and civil litigation
could be used to pressure the energy industrj^ to support legislative and regulator)'

responses to climate change. Participants also planned to enlist state attorneys general
to launch investigations into climate change that could bring "key internal documents
to light."

In March 2015, Pawa sent a memorandum to NextGen America—a nonprofit
group funded by Tom Steyer, the California billionaire hedge-fund manager,
environmental activist, and erstwhile candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential
primarj'—summarizing Pawa's legal strategy against fossil-fuel companies "for their

contributions to California's injuries from global warming." The memo stated that
"certain fossil[-]fuel companies (most notoriously ExxonMobil), have engaged in a

campaign and conspiracy of deception and denial on global warming." Pawa further
stated that "[a] global warming case would be grounded in the doctrine of public
nuisance" and noted that "simply proceeding to the discover)' phase would be

 significant" and that "obtaining industry documents would be a remarkable
achievement that would advance the case and the cause."

Early the following year, in January 2016, Pawa and others met at the
Rockefeller Family Fund offices in New York City to discuss the goals of an "Exxon
campaign." According to the meeting's draft agenda, the goals included

(1) establishing in the public's mind that "Exxon is a corrupt institution that has
pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm";

(2) delegitimizing Exxon as a political actor; (3) driving divestment from Exxon; and
(4) forcing "officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon, their money, and their
historic opposition to climate progress, for example by refusing campaign donations,
refusing to take meetings, calling for a price on carbon, etc." As "main avenues for

legal actions [and] related campaigns," the participants identified "AGs" and tort suits.
The participants planned to use these avenues to obtain discovery and create scandal.
C. State attorneys general enter the fray
Two months later, then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and 18 other state attorneys general—
the "Green 20"—held the "AGs United for Clean Power Press Conference." just

before that March 2016 press conference, Pawa and Frumhoff attended a closed-door
meeting with the AGs, and Pawa briefed them on "climate[-]change litigation." Pawa
tried but failed to conceal from the media his involvement in the meeting.

 During the press conference, the AGs promoted regulating the speech of
energy companies like Exxon—companies that they perceived as hostile to AGs'
policy responses to climate change. New York's Schneiderman declared that there "is
no dispute" about climate change but that there is confusion "sowed by those with an

interest in profiting from the confusion and creating misperceptions in the eyes of
the American public that really need to be cleared up." He denounced "highly
aggressive and morally vacant forces that are trjdng to block every step by the federal

government to take meaningful action" and announced that the Green 20 was
"sending a message that, at least some of us—actually a lot of us—in state
government are prepared to step into this battle with an unprecedented level of
commitment and coordination."

Healey of Massachusetts identified climate change "as a matter of extreme
urgency," and stated that

[p]art of the problem has been one of public perception, and it appears,
certainly, that certain companies, certain industries, may not have told
the whole story, leading many to doubt whether climate change is real
and to misunderstand and misapprehend the catastrophic nature of its
impacts. Fossil[-]fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers
about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held
accountable. That's why I, too, have joined in investigating the practices
of ExxonMobil. We can all see today the troubling disconnect between
what Exxon knew, what industrj' folks knew, and what the company and
the industry chose to share with investors and with the American public.
Around the time of the press conference, Schneiderman issued a subpoena and
Healey issued a civil investigative demand to Exxon to investigate what they

 considered the company's potential consumer and securities fraud. The subpoena and

demand each sought production of communications and documents concerning
climate change (including Exxon's climate-change research), documents related to
statements made at shareholder meetings in Texas, internal corporate documents and
communications concerning regulatory filings, public-facing and investor-facing

reports, communications with trade associations and industry groups, and
communications with "climate deniers."

Exxon responded by suing Schneiderman and Healey in federal court for
declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting various claims: conspiracy to deprive Exxon
of its constitutional rights; violations of Exxon's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights; violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause; preemption; and
abuse of process. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Schneiderman^ 316 F. Supp. 3d 679,
691 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), appeal docketed. No. 18-1170 (2d Or. Apr. 23, 2018). Exxon
asserted that "Pawa,Frumhoff, and others hatched a scheme to promote litigation" at

the La Jolla conference and "saw litigation as a means to uncover internal Exxon
documents regarding climate change and to pressure fossil[-]fuel companies like
Exxon to change their stance on climate change." Id. at 690. As evidence of Pawa's

influence on the investigations, Exxon pointed to the La Jolla conference, the
Rockefeller Family Fund meeting, and the briefing before the Green 20 press
conference. See id. at 689—90, 709. According to Exxon, Schneiderman's and Healey's

intended goal in conducting their investigations was to intimidate and silence the

 fossil-fuel industry's side of the climate-change debate. See id. at 688. Exxon beHeved
that Schneiderman's and Healey's involvement with Pawa and their statements at the

March 2016 press conference suggested that their investigations were politically
motivated and that they were using the document-production requests to pressure
Exxon to change its position on climate change. See id. at 688-91. The federal district
court dismissed Exxon's complaint. Id. at 713-14.
D.Pawa's climate crusade continues

In November 2016, Pawa spoke at a conference and accused Exxon of

"under[taking] a campaign of deception and denial about global warming that
confused the American people and consumers of Exxon's product and all fossil[-]fuel

products about the nature and harms of global warming." According to Pawa, Exxon
scientists had researched global warming in the late 1970s and early 1980s and found

that the atmosphere's carbon-dioxide level was increasing and that the "overwhelming
opinion of scientists was that the source of this problem was the burning of fossil
fuels." In Pawa's telling, Exxon scientists further warned that an increase in carbon

dioxide would result in an average global-temperature rise that would "bring about
significant changes in the earth's climate." These scientists supposedly informed
Exxon management that mitigation would require major reductions in fossil-fuel

combustion. Pawa claimed that Exxon management knew about the scientists'
findings but classified the information as proprietary and barred its distribution
outside the company.
10

 In the same talk, Pawa specifically targeted a 2013 speech concerning climate

change delivered by former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, declaring that Tillerson's
implication that "the planet was not even warming" was either false or misleading.
Pawa also criticized a 2015 speech to shareholders in which Tillerson "questioned
whether or not the computer models used to project future warming are 'lousy,' even
though... Exxon has been using these same kinds of computer models since the
1980s to protect its own business assets by projecting future sea[-]level rise."
E. The California counties and cities sue Exxon (and others) and give
statements to the media about their litigation targets

In 2017, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Imperial Beach, and Santa Cruz,
along with the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, each filed lawsuits in
California state court against Exxon and other fossil-fuel companies, many of which
are also based in Texas.^ These suits alleged that fossil-fuel emissions have caused and

continue to cause global warming and consequent rising sea levels, resulting in
increasingly severe coastal flooding, erosion, and salt-water intrusion. In addition,

these suits complained that despite knowing that their products are causing global
climate change, fossil-fuel companies continue to produce and sell them while
engaging in advertising and public-relations campaigns that promote fossil-fuel use,
discredit scientific research on global warming, and downplay global-warming risks.

'Oakland and San Francisco also sued Texas-based ConocoPhillips. Imperial
Beach, Marin Count)', San Mateo County, Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz Count)' sued
Exxon and 17 other Texas-based energy companies.

11

 As noted, Pawa is one of tlie lawyers representing San Francisco and Oakland.

In separate suits, those two cities brought public-nuisance claims and sought an
abatement-fund remedy "to provide for infrastructure . . . necessary ... to adapt to
global[-]warming impacts, such as sea[-]level rise." Both cities expressly disclaimed
that they were seeking "to impose liability on Defendants for their direct emissions of
greenhouse gases" or seeking "to restrain Defendants from engaging in their business
operations." San Francisco and Oakland each served its complaint on Exxon's
registered agent in California.-

Similarly, in five separate suits, the cities of Imperial Beach and Santa Cruz and

the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz alleged claims for public and
private nuisance, negligence, products liability, and trespass. In addition to "equitable

relief to abate the nuisances," these suits (coUectively, the "San Mateo suits") sought

-Exxon and the other defendants removed the San Francisco and Oakland suits

to federal court, and the federal district court judge in those cases dismissed them for
failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. See City of Oakland v. BP
pic., Nos. C 17-06011 Wm\,C 17-06012 WHA,2018 WI. 3609055, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
July 27,2018); City ofOakland v. BPp.lc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1017,1019(N.D. Cal. 2018);
California v. BPp.lc., Nos. C 17-06011 WHA,C 17-06012 WHA,2018 WL 1064293, at
*1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018). The Ninth Circuit, however, recently determined that
removal was improper because San Francisco's and Oakland's state-law publicnuisance claims did not arise under federal law and thus remanded the cases to district

court to determine whether there was an alternate basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
See City of Oakland v. BP PLC, No. 18-16663, 2020 WL 2702680, at *1, *9 (9th Cir.
May 26, 2020).

12

 compensatory and punitive damages and profit disgorgement. The San Mateo suits
were served on Exxon's registered agent in Texas.^
Each of the cities' and counties' complaints discusses Exxon's internal memos
and scientific research concerning climate change. The complaints also focus on
Exxon's Texas-based speech and associational activities regarding climate change. San

Francisco and Oakland, for example, stated that at Exxon's 2015 annual shareholder
meeting in Texas, "then-CEO Rex Tillerson misleadingly downplayed global
warming's risks by stating that climate models used to predict future impacts were

unreliable." San Francisco's and Oakland's complaints also mention allegedly
misleading corporate statements about climate change issued from Texas, such as
Exxon's "annual 'Outlook for Energy' reports," which the cities describe as a "self-

serving means of promoting fossil fuels and undercutting non-dangerous renewable
energ)' and clean technologies"; statements on Exxon's website emphasizing the
"'uncertainly' of global[-]warming science and impacts"; and Exxon's "'Lights Across
America' website advertisement," which states "that natural gas is 'helping [to]

dramatically reduce America's emissions,' even though natural gas [according to the
cities] is a fossil fuel causing widespread planetary warming and harm to coastal
^The defendants in the San Mateo suits also removed those suits to federal

court, but the federal district court judge in those cases remanded them to state court.
Cty, of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., Nos. 18-15499, 18-15502, 18-15503, 18-16376,
2020 WL 2703701, at *1-2 (9tli Cir. May 26, 2020). In an opinion issued concurrently
with the opinion in the San Francisco and Oakland cases, the same Ninth Circuit
panel affirmed the district court's remand order. Id. at *2 n.3, *9.

13

 cities." San Francisco's and Oakland's complaints also attack Exxon's decisions to

fund climate-change researchers and research groups that the cities have labeled as
"front groups" and climate-change "denialists."

The San Mateo suits similarly focus on Exxon's Texas-based speech and
associational activities concerning climate change such as:

• a 1988 memo from an Exxon public-affairs manager describing the
"Exxon Position," which emphasized "the uncertainty in scientific
conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse Effect" and
resisted "the overstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential
greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic development of
non-fossil[-]fuel resources";
• a 1996 publication released by Exxon entitled,"Global Warming: Who's
Right?," wliich was prefaced by a statement from Exxon's then-CEO
Lee Raymond: "taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary since
many scientists agree there's ample time to better understand the climate
system"; and

• a declaration in Exxon's 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report that in 2008,
Exxon would "discontinue contributions to several public policy
[climate-change-denial] research groups whose position on climate
change could divert attention from tlie important discussion on how the
world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an
environmentally responsible manner."
Shortly after these lawsuits were filed, several of the cities' officials made media

statements supporting the suits. In an op-ed for Tbe San Diego Union-Tribune
supporting Imperial Beach's lawsuit. Mayor Dedina claimed that Exxon and "its

industry colleagues" had known for 50 years that carbon-dioxide pollution from fossil
fuels "would cause the air and oceans to warm and sea levels to rise." Dedina further

claimed that instead of taking steps to remedy the problem and warn the public and
14

 policymakers, fossil-fiiel companies "embarked on a multimillion-dollar campaign,
taken straight from the tobacco industry's playbook, to sow uncertainty around both
the science and the impacts to put off regulation of their [carbon-dioxide] pollution
for as long as possible." During a radio appearance soon after, Dedina accused Exxon
of carrying out a "merchants of doubt" campaign.

In the same vein was a press release issued by Parker, Oakland's City Attorney,
declaring that "[i]t is past time to debate or question the reality of global warming."
She went on to claim: "Just like BIG TOBACCO,BIG OIL knew the truth long ago
and peddled misinformation to con their customers and the American public."
For his part, San Francisco Cit}' Attorney Herrera accused fossil-fuel
companies of "profit[ing] handsomely for decades while knowing they were putting
the fate of our cities at risk," but rather than "owning up to it, they copied a page

from the Big Tobacco playbook" and "launch[ed] a multi-million dollar
disinformation campaign to deny and discredit what was clear even to their own
scientists: global warming is real, and their product is a huge part of tlie problem." He

pledged that San Francisco was "going to ensure that those responsible for the
problem are held to account."
F. In contrast, the cities' and counties' bond offerings downplay cUmatechange risks
The cities' and counties' recent bond-offering disclosures are at odds with the

claims made in their lawsuits. For example, one of San Francisco's 2017 bond

15

 offerings states that according to the California Climate Change Center, the city is at

risk from sea-level rise and flooding caused by climate change. But the offering also
states that San Francisco is "unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts
of climate change ... will occur, when they may occur, and if any such events occur,
whether they will have a material adverse effect on tlie business operations or

financial condition of the City and the local economy."
San Mateo County's 2014 and 2016 bond offerings also refer to the California

Climate Change Center's prediction but similarly state that the county is "unable to
predict whetlier sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a
major storm will occur" and what impact those events would have on the local
economy or on the count}''s business operations or financial condition if they did
occur.

Oakland's 2017 bond offering discusses earthquake and wildfire risks, but not
climate-change risks, stating merely that the city "is unable to predict when seismic
events, fires[,] or other natural events, such as searise or other impacts of climate

change or flooding from a major storm,could occur, when they may occur, and,if any
such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business
operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy."

In a 2013 bond offering. Imperial Beach does not mention climate change,
including under the heading "Natural Disasters"; rather, it states only that
"earthquake, flood, fire, or other natural disaster, could cause a reduction in the Tax
16

 Revenues securing the Bonds." Similarly, Matin County's 2010 bond offering warns

only about "the complete or partial destruction of taxable property caused by natural
or manmade disaster, such as earthquake, flood, fire, terrorist activities, [and] toxic
dumping."

Santa Cruz County's 2016 bond offering, under the heading "Geologic,

Topographic and Climatic Conditions," warns merely of "unpredictable climatic
conditions, such as flood, droughtsf,] and destructive storms." The Cit}' of Santa
Cruz's 2017 bond offering states that "ffjrom time to time, the City is subject to
natural calamities," including "earthquake, flood,tsunami, or wildfire."
G. Exxon files its Rule 202 petition
Based on the disconnect between the cities' and counties' bond-offering

disclosures and what they alleged in their lawsuits, Exxon theorizes that the California

cities and counties "do not actually believe the allegations in their complaints" and
that those allegations "were not made in good faith." Exxon further believes that
these lawsuits have been brought to silence and delegitimize Exxon "as a political
actor" and to coerce it and other Texas-based energy companies into adopting "the

climate[-]change policies favored by special interests and their allies in municipal
government." Exxon points to Pawa's direct involvement in the San Francisco and
Oakland suits as further evidence that they were brought for the "improper purpose"

tliat Pawa endorsed at the La Jolla conference, discussed at the Rockefeller Family

17

 Fund meeting, explained to the state AGs before the Green 20 press conference, and
described in his memo to NextGen America.

Based on these beliefs, Exxon filed a Rule 202 petition in Tarrant Count)'
District Court to investigate potential claims for constitutional torts (specifically,
violations of Exxon's First Amendment rights under the United States and Texas

Constitutions), abuse of process, and civil conspiracy, and to perpetuate and obtain
testimony in anticipation of filing suit. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 202. Exxon
identified as potential defendants the seven California cities and counties that have

sued Exxon and other Texas-based energ)' companies in California, the eight cit)' and
county officials responsible for filing those suits,"* and Pawa (collectively, "the
Potential Defendants"). Exxon also sought to depose seven cit)' and county officials

who signed the bond offerings^ (collectively, "the Prospective Witnesses"). Exxon
alleged that Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants
under Section 17.042(2) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042(2).

The Potential Defendants and Prospective Witnesses filed special appearances
supported by affidavits. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a. Exxon responded and presented its
own evidence. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the special

■"Parker, Herrera, Beiers, Dedina, Lyon, Washington, McRae, and Condotti.

^Landreth, Reiskin, Maltbie, Hall, Hymel, Palacios, and Bernal.

18

 appearances and, at Exxon's request, filed findings of fact and conclusions of law in
support of its order.
II. The Trial Court's Findings and Conclusions

The trial court filed 60 findings of fact and conclusions of law. See BMC

Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchanf 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002)(recognizing that trial
court may make findings of fact in connection with a special-appearance ruling). As
relevant here, the trial court found and concluded the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT

10. In Januarj' 2016, Mr. Pawa engaged participants at the Rockefeller
Family Fund offices in New York Git}' to further solidify "the (g]oals of
an Exxon campaign" that Mr. Pawa [had] developed at the La Jolla
conference....

11. According to the draft agenda, Mr. Pawa and the other participants
aimed to chill and suppress ExxonMobil's speech through "legal actions
& related campaigns," including "AGs" and "TortQ" suits. The draft
agenda notes that participants planned to use "AGs" and "Tortj]" suits
to "getQ discovery" and "creat[e] scandal."

13. At the [Green 20] press conference. Attorney General Schneiderman
discussed the need to regulate the energy industrj^'s speech on climate
change, just as Potential Defendant Pawa had urged at La Jolla and at the
RockefeUer meeting....
14. [At the Green 20 press conference,] Attorney General Hcaley
similarly echoed themes from the strategj' Mr. Pawa developed at La
Jolla....

19

 23. With the investigations of the state attorneys general underway, Mr.
Pawa next promoted his La Jolla strategy to California municipalities, as
potential plaintiffs in tort litigation tliat would be filed against energy
companies,including ExxonMobil.

26. Following through on the strategy Mr. Pawa outlined in his
memorandum to NextGen America, Potential Defendants Parker,
Herrera, and the Cities of Oakland and San Francisco filed

public[-]nuisance lawsuits against ExxonMobil and four other energj'
companies, including Texas-based ConocoPhillips. Mr. Pawa represents
the plaintiffs in those actions, and Ms. Parker and Mr. Herrera signed the
complaints on behalf of the City of Oakland and the Cit}' of San
Francisco, respectively. They used an agent to serve the complaints on
ExxonMobil's registered agent in California, whose role is to transmit
legal process to ExxonMobil in Texas.
27. Potential Defendants Lyon, Washington, Beiers, Condotti, McRae,
the City of Imperial Beach, Marin County, San Mateo County, and the
City and Count)' of Santa Cruz filed similar public[-]nuisance complaints
against ExxonMobil and other energ)' companies, including...17
Texas-based energ)' companies .... Potential Defendants Beiers, Lyon,
McRae, Washington, and Condotti signed these complaints. They used
an agent to serve the complaints on ExxonMobil's registered agent in
Texas.

28. Each of die seven California complaints expressly target speech and
associational activities in Texas.

32. Several Potential Defendants also made statements shordy after filing
the lawsuits focusing on Texas-based speech....

35. The[] allegations [in the California complaints] are contradicted by
the Respondents' own municipal[-]bond disclosures. While the
California municipalities alleged in their complaints against the energ)'
companies that the impacts of climate change were knowable,
quantifiable, and certain, they told their investors the exact opposite.

20

 These contradictions raise the question of whether the California
municipalities brought these suits for an improper purpose.

41. Potential Defendants Pawa, Parker, Herrera, Beiers, Dedina, Lyon,

Washington, McRae, Condotti, County of San Mateo, County of Matin,
City of Imperial Beach, City of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Cruz, City
of Oakland, and City of San Francisco either approved or participated in
filing the lawsuits against the Texas energy sector. That conduct was
directed at Texas-based speech, activities, and property. Prospective
Witnesses Landreth, Reiskin, Maltbie, Hall, Hymel, Palacios, and Bernal
approved the contemporaneous disclosures that contradict the
allegations in the municipal complaints. Those witnesses, along with the
Potential Defendants, are likely to have evidence pertaining to that
contradiction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

42. Under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a proper

court may allow discovery of a potential claim if the court would have
personal jurisdiction over the potential defendants to the anticipated suit.
43. Because this Court is not required to have personal jurisdiction over

prospective witnesses who are not potential defendants, tlie special
appearances of Prospective Witnesses Landreth, Reiskin, Maltbie, Hall,
Hymel,Palacios, and Bemal are denied.

45. This Court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the
Potential Defendants for the anticipated claims of constitutional
violations, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy.

46. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants
to the anticipated action would be permitted under the Texas long-arm
statute, which allows a Texas court to exercise jurisdiction over
nonresidents who commit a tort in whole or in part in Texas. Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code [Ann.] § 17.042(2). Each of the Potential Defendants
is a nonresident within the meaning of the long-arm statute.

21

 47. A violation of First Amendment rights occurs where the targeted
speech occurs or where it would otherwise occur but for the violation.
ExxonlVIobil exercises its First Amendment rights in Texas, and Texas is
the site of the speech challenged by the Potential Defendants' lawsuits.
The anticipated claims therefore concern potential constitutional torts
committed in Texas.

48. Exercising jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants in the
anticipated action would comport with due process because the potential
claims arise from minimum contacts initiated by the Potential
Defendants which purposefully target Texas, including speech, activities,
and property in Texas.
49. Mr. Pawa initiated contact and created a continuing relationship with
Texas by, among other activities, (i) initiating a plan to use litigation to
change corporate behavior of Texas-based energy companies at the La
Jolla conference; (ii) engaging with the Rockefeller Family Fund to
solidify and promote the goal of delegitimizing ExxonMobil as a political
actor; (iii) instigating state attorneys general to commence investigations
of ExxonMobil in order to obtain documents stored in Texas; and

(iv) soliciting and actively promoting litigation by California
municipalities against the Texas energy industr}% including ExxonMobil,
to target Texas-based speech and obtain documents in Texas.
50. All of the Potential Defendants initiated contact and created a

continuing relationship with Texas by (i) developing, signing, approving,

and/or filing complaints that expressly target the speech, research, and
funding decisions of ExxonMobil and other Texas-based energj'
companies to chiU and affect speech, activities, and property in Texas;
and (ii) using an agent to serve ExxonMobil in Texas.
51. The Potential Defendants' contacts were deliberate and purposeful,
and not random, fortuitous, or attenuated.

52. Purposeful availment is satisfied where Texas is the focus of the
Potential Defendants' activities and where the object of the potential
conspiracy is to suppress speech and corporate behavior in Texas. See,
e.g., TV A^feca v. R///^ 490 S.W.3d 29, 40 ^ex. 2016); Hoskins v. R/cco
Vamily Vartners, Ud., Nos. 02-15-00249-CV, 02-15-00253-CV,
2016 WL 2772164, at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2016[, no
pet.])[(mem. op.)].

22

 53. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, ExxonMobil's potential
claims of First Amendment violation[s], abuse of process, and civil
conspiracy would arise from the Potential Defendants' contacts with
Texas.

54. Exercising jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants for the
potential claims would comport with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.

60. To the extent the Court's findings of fact are construed by a
reviewing court to be conclusions of law or vice-versa, the incorrect

designation shall be disregarded and the specified finding and/or
conclusion of law shall be deemed to have been correctly designated
herein.

III. Applicable Law
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 202 allows a trial court to authorize a

deposition either (1) to perpetuate or obtain testimony for use in an anticipated suit or
(2) to investigate a potential claim or suit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1. Rule 202 requires
that requests for presuit discover}' be filed in a "proper court." Tex. R. Civ. P.
202.2(b); In re Doe (Troopei), 444 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding). A
"proper court" is one that has personal jurisdiction over the potential defendant. See
Trooper^ 444 S.W.3d at 604, 608-10. Thus, a trial court may grant a Rule 202 petition
only if it has personal jurisdiction over the potential defendant. See id. at 604,608—11.
A. Establishing personal jurisdiction

A Texas court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the

Texas long-arm statute permits the exercise of such jurisdiction and the exercise of

23

 jurisdiction is consistent with federal and state constitutional due-process guarantees.
MoncrieJ Oil Int'l, Inc. v. OAO Gat^rom, 414 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Tex. 2013). The Texas

long-arm statute allows Texas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident that "commits a tort in whole or in part in this state." Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042(2); TT/' As^teca, 490 S.W.3d at 36. Because the long-arm

statute reaches "as far as the federal constitutional requirements for due process will
allow," a Texas court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident so long as
doing so "comports with federal due[-]process limitations." 77^ At^teca, 490 S.W.3d at
36 {<:\vioUng Spir StarAG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868,872(Tex. 2010)).

In determining whether federal due-process requirements have been met, we
rely on precedent from the United States Supreme Court and otlier federal courts, as

well as our own state's decisions. BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795; Trave^ungie v. Am.
Airlines, Inc., 212 S.W.3d 841, 845—46 (Tex. App.—Fort Wortli 2006, no pet.). Federal

due process is satisfied when (1) the defendant has established minimum contacts
with the state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of

fair play and substantial justice. BNSF J^. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1558 (2017);
TVA^teca,490 S.W.3d at 36.
1. Minimum contacts

A nonresident defendant "establishes minimum contacts with a fomm when it

'purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" MoncrieJ Oil, 414 S.W.3d
24

 at 150 (quoting Bjstamco Operating Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333,338 (Tex.

2009)). Three principles govern our purposefiil-availment analysis: (1) only the
defendant's contacts with Texas are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another

party or third person; (2) the defendant's acts must be purposeful and not random,
isolated, or fortuitous; and (3) the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or
profit by availing itself of Texas's jurisdiction so that it impliedly consents to suit here.
M(&F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 512 S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017)
{cmr\gMichianaEa^ Livin'Countiy, Inc. v. Molten, 168 S.W.3d 111,785 (Tex. 2005)).
To constitute purposeful availment, the defendant's contacts must be
"purposefully directed" to Texas. TKAt^eca,490 S.W.3d at 38 (quoting Guardian Rpyal
Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.LC., 815 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. 1991)).
Those contacts also must result from the defendant's own "efforts to avail itself of

the forum." J^/. {quonng Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Dnfgg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 576(Tex.

2007)). A defendant will not be haled into Texas based solely on contacts that are
"random, isolated, or fortuitus," id. {c^uonng Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 785), or on the
"unilateral activity of another party or a third person," id. (quoting Guardian Royal,
815 S.W.2d at 226). "The defendant's activities, whether they consist of direct acts
within Texas or conduct outside Texas, must justify a conclusion that the defendant
could reasonably anticipate being called into a Texas court." Retamo, 278 S.W.3d at
338 (quoting Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Tex.
2002))
25

 Minimum contacts can give rise to either specific or general jurisdiction. TV
At^eca, 490 S.W.3d at 37. Here, Exxon contends—and the trial court agreed—that
Texas has specific jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants.*" Specific jurisdiction
exists when the cause of action arises from or is related to a defendant's purposeful
activities in the state. Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 150. "For a Texas court to exercise
specific jurisdiction over a defendant,'(1) the defendant's contact with Texas must be

purposeful, and (2) the cause of action must arise from those contacts.'" Old Republic
Naf'l Title I/is. Co. v. Bell, 549 S.W.3d 550, 559 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Michiana,
168 S.W.3d at 795). That is, the defendant's purposeful contacts must be substantially
connected to the operative facts of the litigation or form the basis of the cause of
action. Id. at 559-60 (citing Adoki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585; Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at

795). When analyzing specific jurisdiction, our focus is thus on the relationship
between Texas, the defendant, and the litigation. MoncriefOil, 414 S.W.3d at 150.
2. Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
But even when a nonresident has established minimum contacts with Texas,

due process permits Texas to assert personal jurisdiction over the nonresident only if
doing so comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." TV
Ar^eca, 490 S.W.3d at 55 (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316,
66 S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945)). Tj^pically, though, "[w]hen a nonresident defendant has

^The trial court concluded that Texas does not have general jurisdiction over
the Potential Defendants, a conclusion that no party challenges.

26

 purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conductiiig business in a foreign
jurisdiction, it is both fair and just to subject that defendant to die authority of that
forum's courts." Id. (quoting Spir Star., 310 S.W.3d at 872). "Thus,'[i]f a nonresident
has minimum contacts with the forum, rarely will the exercise of jurisdiction over the

nonresident not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"
Id. (quoting

414 S.W.3d at 154—55).

B. The parties' shifting trial-court burdens and appellate standard of review
In the trial court, the plaintiff bears the initial burden to plead sufficient
allegations to bring the nonresident defendant within the reach of the Texas long-arm
statute. Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653, 658 (l"ex. 2010). Once the

plaintiff has done so, the burden shifts to the defendant to negate all potential bases
for personal jurisdiction as pleaded by the plaintiff. Id. "Because the plaintiff defines
the scope and nature of the lawsuit, the defendant's corresponding burden to negate
jurisdiction is tied to the allegations in the plaintiffs pleading." Id.
The defendant can negate jurisdiction on either a factual or legal basis. Id. at
659. Factually, the defendant can negate jurisdiction by presenting evidence that it has
no contacts with Texas, effectively disproving the plaintiffs allegations; the plaintiff
risks dismissal of its suit if it does not then present the trial court with evidence
affirming its jurisdictional allegations and establishing personal jurisdiction over the

defendant. Id. Legally, the defendant can negate jurisdiction by showing that even if
the plaintiffs alleged jurisdictional facts are tme,(1) the evidence is legally insufficient
27

 to establish jurisdiction, (2) the defendant's Texas contacts fall short of purposeful
availment, (3) the claims do not arise from the defendant's Texas contacts, or
(4) exercising jurisdiction over the defendant would offend traditional notions of fair

play and substantial justice. Id.

Whether a trial court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a legal
question that we review de novo. MoncriefOil^ 414 S.W.3d at 150. But a trial court may
have to resolve fact questions before deciding the jurisdiction question. If the trial
court makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying a special appearance,
the appellant may challenge the fact findings on legal- and factual-sufficiency grounds,
and we review the challenged findings for both legal and factual sufficiency. BMC
Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794. We review challenged legal conclusions de novo to
determine their correctness based on the facts. See id.
IV. The California Parties* Issues

The San Francisco parties,^ tlie Oakland parties,® and the San Mateo parties'
(collectively, "the California Parties") filed separate notices of appeal and separate

^The City of San Francisco, Herrera, and Reiskin.
®The City of Oakland,Pawa,Parker, and Landreth.
'San Mateo County, Marin County, Santa Cruz County, City of Santa Cruz, City
of Imperial Beach, Beiers, Dedina, Lj'on, Washington, McRae, Condotti, Maltbie,
Hall, Hymel,Palacios, and Bernal.

28

 appellate briefs raising similar issues. For efficiency's sake, we combine and recast the
California Parties' issues and arguments as follows:
1. The cities, counties, and their officials are nonresidents under the Texas longarm statute and are thus not within the statute's reach.

2. Exxon failed to plead sufficient allegations to bring the San Francisco parties
and the Oakland parties within the Texas long-arm statute.'"
3. The California Parties lacked minimum contacts with Texas because they did

not purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in
Texas.

4. Exxon's anticipated claims did not arise from or relate to the California Parties'
forum contacts.

5. A Texas court's exercising jurisdiction over the California Parties would offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
6. The evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's fact findings. The
Oakland parties additionally argue that the federal district court's dismissing
Exxon's complaint against attorneys general Schneiderman and Healey
precluded the trial court's findings concerning Pawa's motives.
7. In a Rule 202 proceeding, a trial court must have personal jurisdiction over
prospective witnesses, not just potential defendants."
We wiU assume without deciding that the cities, counties, and their officials are

nonresidents within the meaning of the Texas long-arm statute,'- and begin our

'"The San Mateo parties did not contest that Exxon's pleadings were sufficient
to bring them within the Texas long-arm statute. And unlike the San Francisco parties
and the Oakland parties, the San Mateo parties did not adopt the arguments made in
the other parties' briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.7 ("Any party may join in or adopt by
reference all or any part of a brief. .. filed in an appellate court by another part)' in
the same case.").

"The San Mateo parties did not raise this issue.

29

 analysis by addressing the sufficiency of Exxon's pleadings. Then, we will address
whether the California Parties established that they lack sufficient minimum contacts
with Texas. Because the minimum-contacts issue is dispositive, we will not address
the remaining issues.
V.The Sufficiency of Exxon's Pleadings
As noted, the Texas long-arm statute allows Texas courts to exercise personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident who "commits a tort in whole or in part in this state."

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042(2). Exxon pleaded that Texas has specific
personal jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants under Section 17.042(2) because
the potential abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and constitutional

violations were intentionally targeted at the State of Texas to encourage
the Texas energy sector to adopt the co-conspirator's desired legislative
and regulator)' responses to climate change. Exxon[] and 17 other Texasbased companies that are named in the California ... lawsuits exercise
their First Amendment right in Texas to participate in the national
dialogue about climate change. The speech and other First Amendment
activity of the energ)' sector in Texas is precisely what the potential

^^See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.041 (stating that the term
nonresident' includes... an individual who is not a resident of this state" and "a

foreign corporation, joint-stock company, association, or parmership" (emphasis
added)), § 17.042(2) (stating that a nonresident does business in Texas if the
nonresident "commits a tort in whole or in part in this state"); Tex. Gov't Code Ann.
§ 312.011(19) (stating that "'[ijncludes' and 'including' are terms of enlargement and
not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a

presumption that components not expressed are excluded"). B/// <f. Stroman Realty, Inc.
V. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 482-83 (5th Cir. 2008) (dicta) (explaining that the Texas
long-arm statute may not reach an out-of-state official in cases involving "a challenge
to an out-of-state regulator's enforcement of her state's statute, rather than a
conventional contract or tort claim").

30

 defendants have attempted to stifle through their abuse of law
enforcement powers and civil litigation. [Footnote omitted.]
In short, Exxon pleaded that the Potential Defendants committed a tort in
whole or in part in Texas because they committed torts that were targeted at Texas.
We conclude that these allegations satisfied Exxon's initial burden of alleging a cause
of action sufficient to confer jurisdiction.'^ See hombardo v. Bhattachaiyya, 437 S.W.3d
658, 679 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (concluding that "Bhattacharj^ya's
allegations that Lombardo committed torts in Texas satisfied his initial burden of
alleging a cause of action sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Texas long-arm
statute"); see also TV As(teca, 490 S.W.3d at 43, 47-52 (concluding that aUegations and
evidence that defendants "intentionally targeted Texas through [their] broadcasts"

'^Exxon failed to plead any allegations to bring the Prospective Witnesses
within the reach of the Texas long-arm statute, presumably because it contends—and
the trial court agreed—that a court is not required to have personal jurisdiction over
nonresident prospective witnesses in a Rule 202 proceeding. But whether Exxon was
required to so plead is irrelevant because we conclude that Texas does not have
personal jurisdiction over the Potential Defendants and thus must render judgment
denying Exxon's Rule 202 petition. See Trooper^ 444 S.W.3d at 604-05, 61011 (concluding that trial court abused its discretion by granting Rule 202 petition to
allow the petitioner to depose Google to discover the potential defendant's identity
because the petitioner did not establish personal jurisdiction over the potential
defendant); ebay Inc. v. May Kay Inc., No. 05-14-00782-CV, 2015 WL 3898240, at *23(Tex. App.—Dallas June 25, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (rendering judgment
denjdng Rule 202 petition because in seeking to depose, upon written questions,
eBay's corporate representative to discover the potential defendants' identities, Mar)^
Kay failed to plead jurisdictional facts to establish personal jurisdiction over the
potential defendants).

31

 established purposeful availment). We thus overrule the San Francisco parties' and the
Oakland parties' arguments regarding tlie sufficiency of Exxon's pleadings.
"Although allegations that a tort was committed in Texas satisfy our long-arm
statute, such allegations do not necessarily satisfy the U.S. Constitution." Moncriej^
414S.W.3d at 149. But because Exxon met its initial pleading burden, the burden
sliifted to the California Parties to negate Exxon's basis for jurisdiction—that the

Potential Defendants committed a tort in whole or in part in Texas. See id. at 149-50.
The California Parties responded that exercising jurisdiction over them would violate
due process because they lacked minimum contacts with Texas.
VI. The Potential Defendants Lack Minimum Contacts with Texas

The California Parties argue that the Potential Defendants lack minimum
contacts with Texas because they did not purposefully avail themselves of conducting
activities in Texas. Exxon counters that the Potential Defendants purposefully
directed their activities at Texas, by (1) commencing baseless lawsuits in California

intended to suppress speech in Texas and to gain access to documents in Texas and
(2) serving Exxon with process in Texas.
A. The Potential Defendants' contacts

As an initial matter, we note that a plaintiff must establish specific jurisdiction
on a claim-by-claim basis unless all the asserted claims arise from the same forum
contacts. See id. at 150—51. Here, Exxon's anticipated claims—First Amendment

32

 violations, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy—do all arise from the same alleged
forum contacts:

• The Potential Defendants signed, approved, or participated in filing the
California lawsuits against Exxon and other Texas-based energj'
companies intended to suppress speech and associational rights in Texas
and to obtain documents in Texas throxogh the discover)' process.

• The Potential Defendants hired a process server to serve their
complaints on Exxon in Texas, either by serving the complaints on
Exxon's registered agent in Texas or by serving the complaints on
Exxon's registered agent in California to transmit them to Exxon in
Texas.

Regarding Pawa, Exxon alleged that he had additional contacts with Texas:

(1) he developed and promoted a plan at the La Jolla conference in California and at
the Rockefeller meeting in New York to suppress Texas-based speech and to obtain
Texas-based documents in order to delegitimize Exxon and other Texas-based energ)'

companies; (2) he encouraged state AGs to investigate Exxon, focusing on Texasbased speech and documents; and (3) he promoted tort litigation by California

municipalities against Exxon and others in die Texas energy sector in furtherance of
his plan.
B. Exxon's evidence and the trial court's fact findings

Much of Exxon's responsive evidence and the trial court's fact findings relate
to the merits of Exxon's potential tort claims—that is, the Potential Defendants'

intent in filing and serving the California lawsuits. "The mere existence or allegation
of a conspiracy directed at Texas is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction." Old Republic,

33

 549 S.W.3d at 560 (cinng Nat'/Indus. SatidAss'n v. Gibson, 897 S.W.2d 769, 773 (I'ex.

1995)). The personal-jurisdiction analysis in tort cases must focus on the "physical
fact" of a defendant's contacts with Texas without attempting to decide die merits of
the case:

Business contacts are generally a matter of physical fact, while tort
liability... turns on what the parties thought, said, or intended. Far
better that judges should limit their jurisdictional decisions to the former
rather than involving themselves in trying the latter.
Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 791; see Moncrief, 414 S.W.3d at 147 (reiterating that "what the

parties thought, said, or intended is generally irrelevant to their jurisdictional
contacts").

Moreover, the supreme court has "expressly disapproved of the notion that

'specific jurisdiction turns on whether a defendant's contacts were tortious rather than
the contacts themselves.'" Estate ofHood, No. 02-16-00036-CV, 2016 WL 6803186, at
*7 (Tex. App.—^Fort Wordi Nov. 17, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Michiana,

168 S.W.3d at 792). As we have recently observed,"[W]e do not address the merits of
the tort claims in reviewing the special appearance; rather, we instead analyze the
qualit)' and nature of [a defendant's] proven contacts in light of [die plaintiffs]

pleaded

tort claims." OZO Capital, Inc. v. Sjphers, No. 02-17-00131-CV,

2018 WI^ 1531444, at *6 n.9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 29, 2018, no pet.)(mem.
op.)(citing Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 790—92).

34

 Accordingly, the trial court's findings regarding the Potential Defendants'

intent in filing the California lawsuits are irrelevant to our personal-jurisdiction

analysis, and we thus will not address the Cahfomia Parties' challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting those findings. Instead, we focus on tlie quality
and nature of the Potential Defendants' contacts with Texas.

C. Analysis

We begin by noting that for Texas to have specific jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant, the nonresident's conduct need not actually occur in Texas, as

long as the defendant's acts were purposefully directed toward Texas as opposed to a
Texas resident.

Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1112 (2014);

Trave/fung/e, 212 S.W.Sd at 847; see also Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Holding^ Inc. v. Nantic

Mgmt. IV, L.P., 493 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Tex. 2016) ("Although 'physical presence in the
forum' is 'a relevant contact,' it 'is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction.'") (quoting
Walden, 571 U.S. at 285, 134 S. Ct. at 1122). Relying primarily on the Texas Supreme

Court's opinions in TV Avpeca and Retamco, Exxon argues that the Potential
Defendants purposefioUy directed their conduct at Texas by targeting Texas and Texas

property by filing and serving the California suits in furtherance of a conspiracy
directed at Texas to suppress Texas-based speech and associational activities and to
gain access to Exxon's documents in Texas through discover}'in the California suits.
In TV At(teca, a Mexican recording artist residing in South Texas sued two
Mexican television broadcasters and a Mexican news anchor and producer for
35

 defamation based on broadcasts that originated in Mexico but reached parts of Texas.

490 S.W.3d at 34—35. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately held that the defendants
had indeed purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in
Texas by intentionally targeting Texas through the allegedly defamatory broadcasts. Id.
at 52.

But in reaching its holding, the court rejected the plaintiffs contention that the
defendants' having simply "directed a tort" at her in Texas was a basis for exercising
personal jurisdiction over them:"No one disputes that [the plaintiff] resides in Texas

and the brunt of any injuries she suffered from [the defendants'] broadcasts occurred
in Texas," but "courts cannot base specific jurisdiction merely on the fact that the
defendant'knows that the brunt of the injurj' will be felt by a particular resident in the

forum state.'" Id. at 43 (quoting Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 788). The court then stated
that "[tjhere is a subtle yet crucial difference between directing a tort at an individual

who happens to live in a particular state and directing a tort at that state." Id. "The
fact that the plaintiff lives and was injured in the forum state is not irrelevant to the

jurisdictional inquiry, but it is relevant only to the extent that is shows that theforum
state was 'the focus of the activities of the defendant.'" Id. (quoting Keetoti v. Hustler
Magatfm, Inc., 465 U.S. 770,780,104 S. Ct. 1473,1481 (1984)). But "the mere fact that
[the defendants] directed defamatory statements at a plaintiff who lives in and
allegedly suffered injuries in Texas, without more, does not establish specific
jurisdiction over [the defendants]." Id.
36

 Nonetheless, the TV A:^eca court ultimately concluded that through their
broadcasts the nonresident defendants had intentionally targeted Texas and thus

purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of conducting activities in Texas
because "additional conduct" evidence showed that they intended to serve the Texas

market with their broadcasts. See id. at 46—52. The court explained that "a plaintiff can

establish that a defamation defendant targeted Texas by relying on other 'additional
conduct' through which the defendant 'continuously and deliberately exploited' the
Texas market." Id. at 47 (quoting Keelon, 465 U.S. at 781,104 S. Ct. at 1481). Evidence
that the defendants had physically entered into Texas to produce and to promote their
broadcasts, had derived substantial revenue and other benefits from selling advertising
to Texas businesses, and had made substantial efforts to distribute their programs and

to increase their popularity in Texas was sufficient to support the trial court's finding
that the defendants had "continuously and deliberately exploited the [Texas] market."
Id. at 52(quoting Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781,104 S. Ct. at 1481).
But here, no similar acts of "additional conduct" exist through which the

Potential Defendants can be said to have continuously and deliberately exploited
Texas. Exxon contends that the Potential Defendants made "substantial efforts" to

spread their viewpoints in Texas and to suppress Texas-based speech about climate
change by making public statements and filing pretextual lawsuits against Exxon and
others in the Texas energj' sector. Yet even though the California suits and some of
the Potential Defendants' public comments target Exxon's climate-change speech,
37

 these out-of-state actions were directed at Exxon, not Texas. Without more, the mere
fact that the Potential Defendants directed these statements at Texas-based Exxon

and that Exxon might suffer injury here does not establish personal jurisdiction. See id.
at 43.

Quoting TV Af^eca, Exxon nevertheless asserts that a court may exercise
personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose "intentional, and allegedly tortious,
actions were expressly aimed at" Texas and where the "effects" of that conduct are

felt in Texas. Id. at 40 (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S. Ct. 1482,

1487 (1984)). Because this quotation embeds one from Calder, we interpret Exxon's
assertion as urging us to adopt the Calder "effects test" for determining specific
jurisdiction. See 465 U.S. at 788-89, 104 S. Ct. at 1486-87 (holding that California

properly asserted personal jurisdiction over Florida-based defendants in part because
CaHfomia resident suffered "the bmnt of the harm" in California).
Calder involved a Florida-based national newspaper that published an allegedly
defamatory article about a California actress. Id. at 784—85, 104 S. Ct. at 1484—85. The
Supreme Court examined the various contacts that the defendants had created with

Cahfomia in writing the article: the defendants had relied on phone calls to
"California sources" for information for the article; the article concerned the actress's

activities in California; the defendants caused reputational injury in California by
writing an allegedly defamatory article that was widely circulated in California; and the
actress suffered the "brunt" of that injury in California. Id. at 788-89, 104 S. Ct. at
38

 1486. "In sum, California [was] the focal point both of the story and of the harm
suffered." Id. at 789,104 S. Ct. at 1486. The Court held that personal jurisdiction over

the Florida defendants was "therefore proper in California based on the 'effects' of
their Florida conduct in California." Id., 104 S. Ct. at 1486-87.

The Supreme Court has since clarified, however, that the Colder "effects test"

requires that the alleged tort's "effects" must connect the defendant's conduct to the
forum state, not just to a plaintiff who lives there. See Walden, 571 U.S. at 288,
134S. Ct. at 1124. In Walden, the Court reaffirmed that the specific-jurisdiction

inquiry "focuses 'on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the
litigation.'" Id. at 284, 134 S. Ct. at 1121 (quoting Keefon, 465 U.S. at 775, 104 S. Ct. at
1478). "For a state to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's
suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State." Id.,

134 S. Ct. at 1121. This "relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant
himself creates with the forum State." Id. at 284, 134 S. Ct. at 1122(quoting Burner King
Corp. V. Bud^wic^j 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2184 (1985)). And the "analysis
looks to the defendant's contacts with the fomm State itself, not the defendant's

contacts with persons who reside there." Id. at 285, 134 S. Ct. at 1122. That is, mere
injury to a forum resident is an insufficient connection to the forum, and "an injury is
jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it shows that the defendant has formed a
contact with the forum State." Id. at 290, 134 S. Ct. at 1125. Instead, the proper

inquiry is whether the nonresident defendant's conduct is aimed at the forum state—
39

 the question is thus "not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect
but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful
way." Id., 134 S. Ct. at 1125.

The Texas Supreme Court's interpretation of Colder aligns with the Supreme
Court's: "Mere knowledge that the 'brunt' of the alleged harm would be felt—or have

effects—^in the forum state is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction." Searg v.
Parex Res., Inc., 496 S.W.3d 58, 68—69 (Tex. 2016). Additionally, the Texas Supreme
Court has "explicidy rejected an approach to specific jurisdiction that turns upon
where a defendant 'directed a tort' rather than on the defendant's contacts." Old

Republic, 549 S.W.3d at 565 {ciungMichiana, 168 S.W.3d at 790—92). Thus,"the 'effects

test' is not an altemative to [the] traditional 'minimum contacts' analysis, and it does

not displace the factors we look to in determining whether a defendant purposefully
availed itself of the state." Id.

Here, the Potential Defendants' alleged Texas contacts—(1) filing suit in

California state court asserting state-law claims against Texas-based Exxon and
serving Exxon with process in furtherance of that litigation, which might result in the
discovery of documents located in Texas and (2) Pawa's out-of-state activities and
statements regarding Exxon's climate-change stance—are not contacts with Texas,

but with a Texas resident. Without more, their knowledge that Exxon will feel the
effects in Texas does not suffice. Under these circumstances, the nonresident

Potential Defendants could not reasonably have anticipated being haled into court in
40

 Texas. We thus conclude that these contacts are insufficient to establish purposeful

availment. See, e.g., SpaceCo Bus. Sols., Inc. v. Mass Engineered Design, Inc., 942 F. Supp. 2d
1148, 1154 (D. Colo. 2013) (pointing out lack of authority interpreting Calder to

support proposition that "any time a plaintiff files a suit in a jurisdiction other than
the defendant's principal place of business, at least where the defendant accuses him
of an abuse of process or malicious prosecution, he renders himself vulnerable to
being sued by the defendant in the defendant's home state, again regardless of
whether the plaintiff turned defendant has had any other contacts with that state").
And to the extent Exxon argues that specific jurisdiction exists in this case under the
directed-a-tort theory, we reject that argument as well. See Michiana, 168 S.W.Sd at
790-92 (holding that allegation or evidence that nonresident defendant directed a tort
at a Texas resident was insufficient to support specific jurisdiction); see also Old

Republic, 549 S.W.3d at 565 ("Moreover, we have explicitly rejected an approach to
specific jurisdiction that turns upon where a defendant 'directed a tort' rather than on
the defendant's contacts." {cinng Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 790-92)).

We likewise conclude that filing lawsuits in California that would yield, through

the discovery process, the production of documents located in Texas is not
sufficientiy targeting Texas propert)' to subject the Potential Defendants to personal
jurisdiction here. In Retamco, the supreme court held that the defendant had "reached
out and created a continuing relationship in Texas" by purchasing and taking
assignment of real-property interests in Texas even though the defendant never
41

 entered the state to do so. 278 S.W.3d at 339. The defendant's ownership made the
defendant "liable for obligations and expenses related to the interests" and allowed

the defendant to '"enjoy... the benefits and protections of [Texas laws.]"' Id
(quoting Michiam, 168 S.W.3d at 787). The court also noted that the contact was not

merely fortuitous: the property's location was "fixed in this state." Id. Moreover, the

defendant sought a "benefit, advantage[,] or profit" in Texas, id. at 340 (quoting
Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 785), because the assignment gave it "valuable assets in Texas,
including the right to enforce warranties and covenants related to the real property,"
id. The court thus held that the defendant had purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of conducting activities in Texas. Id.

Consistent with the court's reasoning in Ketamco, we determined several years
ago that nonresidents' alleged backdating of documents to be filed in a Texas

property's chain of tide was directed at Texas in light of Texas's interest in
maintaining stability and certaint)' regarding tide to Texas real property. Hoskifis,
2016 WL 2772164, at *7. As a result, we held that these actions were directed at the

state of Texas rather than solely at a Texas resident and showed "purposeful
availment necessary to support minimum contacts for the purposes of specific
jurisdiction." Id. Similarly, in a case predating Ketamco^ we found that an overseas-

based travel company purposefully directed its activities toward Texas when it used
computer software to repeatedly and continuously intentionally access information
from the plaintiffs computer servers that were physically located in Texas. Travel]ungle,
42

 212 S.W.3d at 844, 849—50. In reaching our holding, we explained that the travel
company's actions went beyond just looking at the website; rather, the company took
up valuable computer capacity, depriving the plaintiff of the "ability to use that same
capacity' to serve its other customers." Id. at 850.
Based on these cases, Exxon argues that interfering with Texas property—

whether real or personal—can provide sufficient contacts with Texas to establish
personal jurisdiction, and that the Potential Defendants' seeking Exxon's Texas
documents through discovery in the California suits sufficiently targets Texas property

to subject them to personal jurisdiction here. We disagree. As noted, whether Texas
may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident focuses on the relationship
among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, which "must arise out of contacts
that the 'defendant himself creates witii the forum State." Waldett, 571 U.S. at 284,
134 S. Ct. at 1122. And to constitute purposeful availment, the defendant's contacts
must result from the defendant's own "efforts to avail itself of the forum." TV At^eca,
490 S.W.3d at 38. And "[t]he defendant's activities, whether they consist of direct acts

within Texas or conduct outside Texas, must justify a conclusion that the defendant

could reasonably anticipate being called into a Texas court." Retamco, 278 S.W.3d at
338.

Here, the Potential Defendants' seeking discover)' from a Texas resident during

the course of California litigation was not an effort to avail themselves of Texas and
does not justify a conclusion that they could reasonably anticipate being haled into a
43

 Texas court. Initiating an out-of-state lawsuit where some discoverable documents
might be physically located in Texas and are under Exxon's control does not invoke

the benefits or protections of Texas's laws. If it did, any plaintiff in an out-of-state
lawsuit against a Texas defendant who maintained documents here would be subject
to specific jurisdiction in a Texas case arising from or relating to that out-of-state suit.
Several cases demonstrate that contacts similar to the ones alleged here

between a state resident and a nonresident in connection with out-of-state litigation
do not suffice for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in cases

arising from that out-of-state litigation. For example, allegedly abusive litigation and
service of process are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. See, e.g., Allred v.
Moore dr Peterson, 117 F.3d 278, 280, 287 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that in case arising
from Louisiana litigation, Mississippi did not have personal jurisdiction over Texas

and Louisiana attorneys who had sued Mississippi resident in Louisiana and served
resident in Mississippi by mail); Diddel v. Davis, No. H-04-4811, 2005 WL 8164061, at
*1—2, *5-7 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2005) (relying on Allred to hold that Texas lacked
personal jurisdiction over Mar)4and resident and his Marjdand and Florida law)'ers for

claim arising from their allegedly frivolous Florida lawsuit against Texas resident
concerning a Florida land transaction, concluding that mailing draft complaint to

Texas resident, serving Texas resident in Texas, and Texas resident's suffering harmful

effects in Texas were insufficient jurisdictional contacts); Estate of Hood,
2016 WI^ 6803186, at *1—3, *6—7 (holding that, in connection with a Mississippi
44

 probate proceeding involving Texas property, a Mississippi attorney's mailing to a
Texas resident a petition to close the probate proceeding, a notice of hearing, a
proposed release, and a cover letter threatening to withhold funds unless release was

signed did not meet purposeful-availment standard in case brought in Texas against
Mississippi attorney and his firm arising from the attomej^'s actions in the Mississippi
probate proceeding); rf
. Stanton v. Gloersen^ No. 05-16-00214-CV,2016 WL 7166550, at
*2-3, *11 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (relying on

Michiana to hold that Texas lacked personal jurisdiction over Florida lawyer who made
allegedly false statements concerning Texas resident to Texas authorities as part of
law}'er's representation of Florida resident). The fact that most, if not all, of the

Potential Defendants are governmental entities or government officials''^ does not
affect this conclusion. See Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt, 528 F.3d 382, 383, 386-87 (5th
Cir. 2008)(finding no personal jurisdiction in Texas over Texas resident's suit against

Florida and California licensing and regulatory government officials where the only
contacts between officials and Texas were cease-and-desist orders mailed to the

resident, California's correspondence with the Texas Real Estate Commission

regarding the resident, and Florida's making a public-information-act request to the
Texas Attorney General for information about the resident); Wercinski, 513 F.3d at
480, 483-84 (holding Texas did not have personal jurisdiction over Texas resident's

'''We are agnostic about whether Pawa in his capacity as counsel for the cities
of San Francisco and Oakland could be considered a government official.

45

 suit against Ari2ona licensing and regulatory government official where the only
contacts between official and Texas were a cease-and-desist order mailed to the

resident in Texas and correspondence with resident's attorneys).
Having examined the Potential Defendants' contacts with Texas, we conclude
that they do not meet the purposeful-availment standard and that the Potential
Defendants thus lacked minimum contacts with Texas. Because sufficient minimum

contacts are not present, we need not address whether Exxon's potential claims arise
from or relate to those contacts or whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
the Potential Defendants would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.

VII. Personal Jurisdiction Over the Prospective Witnesses
Exxon argues that a court is not required to have personal jurisdiction over

prospective wimesses in a Rule 202 proceeding and thus the trial court properly
denied the Prospective Witnesses' special appearances. If Exxon maintains that a
Texas court can grant a Rule 202 petition ordering depositions from prospective
witnesses when it does not have personal jurisdiction over the potential defendants,
Texas Supreme Court authority compels us to disagree.
In Trooper, the court concluded that because the Rule 202 petitioner did not

establish that Texas had personal jurisdiction over the potential defendant, the trial
court abused its discretion by granting the petition to allow the petitioner to depose
Google (which did not oppose the petition) to discover the potential defendant's
46

 identity. See 444 S.W.3d at 604—05. In so concluding, the court stated that the "proper
court" in which to file a Rule 202 petition must have personal jurisdiction over the
potential defendant. Id. at 608. The court gave two reasons for its conclusion:

Yirst To allow discovery of a potential claim against a defendant
over which the court would not have personal jurisdiction denies him
the protection Texas procedure would otherwise afford. Under Rule
120a, a defendant who files a special appearance in a suit is entitled to
have the issue of personal jurisdiction heard and decided before any
other matter. Discovery is limited to matters directly relevant to the
issue. To allow witnesses in a potential suit to be deposed more
extensively than would be permitted if the suit were actually filed would
circumvent the protections of Rule 120a. When a potential defendant
could challenge personal jurisdiction, the potential claimant could simply
conduct discovery under Rule 202 before filing suit.

Second: To allow a Rule 202 court to order discover)' without

personal jurisdiction over a potential defendant unreasonably expands
the rule. Even requiring personal jurisdiction over the potential
defendant. Rule 202 is already tlie broadest pre-suit discovery authority
in the countx)'. If a Rule 202 court need not have personal jurisdiction
over a potential defendant, the rule could be used by anyone in the
world to investigate anyone else in the world against whom suit could be
brought within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The reach of the
court's power to compel testimony would be limited only by its grasp
over wimesses. This was never contemplated in the procedures leading
to Rule 202,from 1848 to 1999, nor was it the intent of Rule 202.
Id, at 608—10(foomotes omitted).

Based on Trooper., we conclude that the relevant personal-jurisdiction inquiry in
a Rule 202 proceeding is whether Texas has personal jurisdiction over a potential
defendant. If not, a trial court has no discretion to grant a Rule 202 petition. See id. at

604, 608-11; eBaj, 2015 WL 3898240, at *2-3 (rel)'ing on Trooper and rendering

47

 judgment denying petitioner's Rule 202 petition because in seeking to depose, on
written questions, third-party's corporate representative to discover potential
defendants' identities, petitioner failed to plead jurisdictional facts to establish
personal jurisdiction over potential defendants). Thus, whether Texas has personal
jurisdiction over a person or entity that is only a prospective witness is irrelevant.
VIII. Conclusion

Because the Potential Defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the
privilege of conducting activities within Texas, they lack sufficient contacts for a
Texas court to exercise specific jurisdiction over them. This conclusion is dispositive

of the California Parties' appeal, and we thus reverse the trial court's order denying
their special appearances and render judgment denying Exxon's Rule 202 petition. See
eBaj, 2015 WL 3898240, at *3.

IX. Some Final Thoughts

We confess to an impulse to safeguard an industry that is vital to Texas's
economic well-being, particularly as we were penning this opinion weeks into 2020's
COVID-19 pandemic-driven shutdown of not only Texas but America as a whole.

Lawfare is an ugly tool by which to seek the environmental policy changes the
California Parties desire, enlisting the judiciary to do the work that the other two

branches of government cannot or will not do to persuade their constituents that
anthropogenic climate change (a) has been conclusively proved and (b) must be
remedied by crippling the energ)' industr)'. And we are acutely aware that California
48

 courts might well be philosophically inclined to join the lawfare batdefield in ways far
different than Texas courts.

Being a conservative panel on a conservative intermediate court in a relatively

conservative part of Texas is both blessing and curse: blessing, because we strive
always to remember our oath to follow setded legal principles set out by higher courts
and not encroach upon the domains of die other governmental branches; curse,

because in this situation, at this rime in histor}', we would very much like to foUow our
impulse instead.

In the end, though, our reading of the law simply does not permit us to agree
with Exxon's contention that the Potential Defendants have die purposeful contacts
with our state needed to satisfy the minimum-contacts standard that binds us.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Delivered: June 18, 2020

49