Court Opinion

ID: 9391741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 06:10:36.68494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.724535
License: Public Domain

DENY and Opinion Filed April 27, 2023

                                      In the
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00379-CV

 IN RE REDBIRD TRAILS APARTMENTS, BRIDGEWAY CAPITAL, LLC
             AND NCM MANAGEMENT, LTD., Relators

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00945-A

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      Before the Court are relators’ April 26, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

and emergency motion. In their petition, relators challenge the trial court’s order

denying their motion for discovery of Texas Department of Family and Protective

Services (TDFPS) documents considered confidential under the Texas Family Code.

They complain that the trial court abused its discretion by determining after an in

camera inspection that none of the requested documents were relevant.

      Relators initially filed a similar petition for writ of mandamus on April 10,

2023. We denied that petition on April 17, 2023, noting that the mandamus record

did not include the records inspected by the trial court and that nothing before the
Court reflected that relators had asked the trial court to carry the documents forward

to this Court under seal.

      In their re-filed petition, relators inform us that the trial court has destroyed

the copy of the records it had inspected, but DFPS has printed out another copy of

its records for the trial court. Relators thus advise us that they have a pending request

for the trial court to forward that printout under seal.

      Based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude that even if the trial

court were to forward that printout to us, relators have not met their burden of

showing that the documents tendered to this Court in camera are the same documents

relators tendered to the trial court. See In re Barnes, 655 S.W.3d 658, 669 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2022, orig. proceeding). Because the record in an original proceeding

is assembled by the parties, this Court strictly enforces the authentication

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 to ensure the integrity of the

record. Id.

      Accordingly, we deny the petition. Having denied the petition, we also deny

the emergency motion as moot.

230379f.p05                                  /Cory L. Carlyle//
                                             CORY L. CARLYLE
                                             JUSTICE

                                          –2–