### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00725- CV

Ge orge G ree n and Gar lan Gre en, Appellan ts

v. P ort of Call Hom eowners Association, Randol ph H arig, Nancy Car others, and P hili p Jacobs, Joh n Ross Bu chholtz, and Richard Pat M cElroy, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F LLANO COUNTY , 33RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. 183 14, H ONO RAB LE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

I n this cause , appellants Geor g e and Gar lan Gre en filed a notice of appea l seeking to challeng e an inter locutory order signe d by

the district court on October 21, 2014. As the basis for

our jurisdiction, the Gre ens invoked Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. C o d e § 51.014(a) (4), which permits interlocutory appea ls from temporar y injunctions. On J anuar

y 30, 2015, afte r the Gre ens filed their opening brief in their appea l, the district court vacated its October 21, 2014 order and signe d a new “Discove ry Orde r” in its stead. Shortly there afte r, appellee s filed a motion urg ing us to dismiss this

cause as moot. I n response , the Gre ens have insisted that the new discovery order is substantively identical to the October order , or near ly so, and that the combined eff ect of the district court’s J an u ar y 30 ruling s was to improperly impair our jurisdiction to decide the pending appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 29.5(b).We ag ree with appellee s t h at we lack jurisdiction under Section 51.014(a) (4) to

revie w the district court’s October order

. To that extent, we g rant appellee s’ motion and dismiss the Gre ens’ a ppeal of that order . Howeve r, the Gr eens a re c orre ct in observing that the content of the d i s t ri ct co urt’s J anuar

y 30 discovery order overla ps that of t he October order. As a consequenc e,
some of the arg uments the Gre ens raise in their opening brief, as well as additional arg uments they have raised in opposition to a ppellees’ dismiss al motion, implicate not only the October order , but the substance of the relief awa rded in the J anuar

y 30 discovery order

. These include complaints by the Gre ens that the distr i ct co u rt err ed or abused its discretion in restric ting the Gre ens from reque sting documents an d i n fo rmation from appellee s. We have jurisdiction to enter tain such complaints via a petition for writ of mandamus, and we will, in light of their substance, resty le this

cause as an orig inal proce eding — In re George Gree n and Garlan Gree n — and trea t the Gre ens’ filings as seeking mandamus relief from the J anuar y 30 discovery order

. To this extent, we overr ule appellee s’ motion to dis miss.

Fur thermore , we reque st that appellee s file, no later than April 20, 2015, a response addre ssing the Gre ens’ entitlement to mandamus relief from the J anuary 3 0 discovery order , including addre ssing the Gre ens’ arg uments pre d i ca t ed on claimed rig hts of acc ess to appellee s’

rec ords that derive from statutes, by laws, or other leg al authorities ex t erna l to the civil discovery rules. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(b)( 1). Both sides may supplement the re cord a s warr anted. 1 I t is ordere d on April 3, 2015.

This order superse des our Marc h 2, 2015 order setting a conditional deadline for appellee s 1 to file their appe llate brief

. 2Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland

3