Court Opinion

ID: 9909355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 07:09:01.503159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:10.659138
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 8, 2023

                                        In The
                               Court of Appeals
                        Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-01239-CV

           IN RE INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, INC. AND
                     STEPHEN MCCORD, Relators

          Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-04058

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
                               Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Before the Court is relators’ December 7, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relators challenge the trial court’s orders dated November 20, 2023, granting real

party in interest’s motion to compel and denying relators’ motion to quash and for

protective order.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate

remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a record sufficient
to show entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

      Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) required relators to file an appendix with their petition that

contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other

document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule

52.7(a)(1) required relators to file with their petition “a certified or sworn copy of

every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any

underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Although relators provided

certified copies of the two November 20, 2023 orders at issue, none of the other

documents relators included in their appendix or record are sworn or certified copies.

Thus, relators have failed to meet their burden to provide this Court with a record

sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

      Also before the Court is relators’ December 7, 2023 emergency motion for

temporary stay of trial court’s discovery orders. The motion lacks the required

certificate of conference, although real party in interest has already filed a response

opposing the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). In any event, we deny the

emergency motion as moot.

                                            /Emily Miskel/
231239f.p05                                 EMILY MISKEL
                                            JUSTICE

                                         –2–