## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00068

- CV

IN RE LANDSTAR RANGER, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MO RANDUM OPINION On July 30, 2021, Relator Landstar Ranger, Inc. , filed a petition for a writ of mandamus complaining of the trial cou rt’s July 22, 2021, discovery order permitting the Real Party in Interest to take certain depositions of purported assis tants of Relator’s expert witness . We deny the petition. 1 After reviewing the record, we conclude that Relator failed to comply with Rules 52.7(a)(1) and 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 52.7(a)(1) states that a relator must file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document th a t is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.7(a)(1); see T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(k)(1)(A) (“The appendix must contain . . . a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of .”). “ ‘ Documents that are attached to a properly prepared affidavit are sworn copies, ’ while documents attached to an improperly prepared affi davit are not.” In re Long , 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Hend erson , No. 06

- 15

- 00034

- CR, 2015 WL 13522812, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Butler , 270 S .W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding))). “The affidavit ‘must affirmatively show it is based o n the personal knowledge of the affiant’; the affidavit ‘is insufficient unless the statements in it are direct and unequivocal and perjury can be assigned to them.’” Id

. (quoting In re Henderson , 2015 WL 13522812, at *1 (citing In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d a t 759) ).

1 In conjunc tion with the petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator filed a motion for an emergency stay of the trial court’s order compelling discovery. Because we deny the mandamus petition, the emergency motion is denied.3

Although t he affidavit filed by Relator stated that the “documents contained in Relator’s Mandamus Record are true and correct copies of the original documents in the records of the trial court,” this language is insufficient because it contains no recitation that it was based on the personal knowledge of the affiant

. Id. at 445; see In re Quintana , No. 02

- 15

- 00305

- C V, 2015 WL 6395639, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 22, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (finding insufficient the recitation that “documents attached in the appendix are documents filed in this cause of action”); In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 758 (findin g insufficient the recitation that “[t]he documents contained in the attached Record and attached App endix to the Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus are to my knowledge true and correct copies of the original documents”); see also In re Gentry , No. 05

- 20

- 00442

- CV, 2020 WL 2519892, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 18, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (fi nding insufficient the recitation on a certification that the petition was “TRUE and CORRECT, to the best of my knowledge under the threat of perjury”).

“ ‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[ ] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.” In re Long , 607 S.W.3d at 445 (quoting In re Smith , No. 05

- 1 9

- 00268

- CV, 2019 WL 13059 70, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quo ting In re McKinney , No. 05

- 14

- 01513

- CV, 2014 WL 7399301, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.))). “It is the relator’s burd en to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief.” In re Long , 607 S.W.3d at 446 (quoting In re Henderson , 2015 WL 13522812, at *2 ) (citing T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(k)(1)(A),4

52.7(a)(1))). Because the affidavit is in sufficient, the do cuments atta ched thereto are not sworn copies as is required by Rules 52.3(k)(1)(A) and 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). In addition, Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedu re provides, “The person filing the petition must certify that he or she has review ed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(j). The mandamu s petition failed to contain a certification as is required by Rule 52. 3(j). Here, the record provided to this Court does not comply with Rules 52.3(k)(1)(A) and 52.7(a)(1) , and the petition for a writ of mandamus does not com ply with Rule 52. 3(j). As a

r esult, the record is not sworn , and the petition is not authenticated. We, therefore, deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 3, 2021 Date Decided: August 4, 2021