These claims are not in the nature of claims for affirmative relief. See RSL Funding, 499 S.W.3d at 430-31 ("[Asserting defensive claims-even if such claims seek affirmative relief-does not waive arbitration."); see also Fisher v. Carlile, No. 01-16-00615-CV, 2017 WL 2774486, at *5 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 27, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Similarly, purely defensive measures do not substantially invoke the judicial process. See G.T. Leach Builders, 458 S.W.3d at 513 (filing a counterclaim did not waive the right to arbitration because the counterclaim was defensive in nature as the counterclaim was compulsory and could be lost if not filed); Fisher v. Carlile, No. 01-16-00615-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5895, at *12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 27, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (a party's request for injunctive relief was directed at maintaining the status quo, not in seeking a disposition on the merits, and therefore was not inconsistent with arbitration); Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Horizon Oil & Gas Co., 809 S.W.2d 589, 593 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ dism'd w.o.j.) (examples of defensive measures include filing of a general denial to preclude default judgment and filing of a protective order in response to a discovery request); see also In re Serv. Corp., 85 S.W.3d at 174 (holding that objecting to a trial setting showed intent to avoid rather than to participate in the judicial process). Similarly, a party does not substantially invoke the judicial process merely by participating in discovery.