Court Opinion

ID: 9881417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 15:10:24.883992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:30.537047
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued September 26, 2023

                                       In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00608-CV
                            ———————————
                   IN RE JUSTIN CARL PFEIFFER, Relator

            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Justin Carl Pfeiffer filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting

we order the trial court to (1) vacate its July 10, 2023 order denying Relator’s Third

Motion to Compel Responses to Relator’s First Set of Discovery Requests and its

July 31, 2023 order denying Relator’s Limited Reconsideration of the July 10, 2023

order; (2) overrule the objections of Real Parties in Interest David H. Berg and David

H. Berg & Associates PC, doing business as Berg & Androphy, and order them to

provide “unqualified and sufficient responses” to certain enumerated requests; and
(3) allow Relator to conduct “reasonable additional follow-up discovery upon Real

Parties in Interest’s production of ordered discovery.”1

      We deny the petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are denied

as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

1
      The underlying case is Justin Carl Pfeiffer v. David H. Berg and David H. Berg &
      Associates PC, doing business as Berg & Androphy, Cause No. 2022-60439,
      pending in the 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Cory
      Sepolio presiding.

                                          2