Opinion
01-23-00694-CV
10-31-2023
In re The Sydow Firm, PLLC and Michael D. Sydow
113th District Court of Harris County, No. 2023-03316
ORDER
Amparo Guerra, Judge
On September 25, 2023, relators The Sydow Firm, PLLC and Michael D. Sydow filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's August 9, 2023 order denying their "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction," and the trial court's oral rulings "that denied all but two of the Sydow Firm's and Sydow's objections and denied the protective order they sought." On October 25, 2023, relators filed a reply in support of their mandamus petition. In part, relators' reply noted that on October 17, 2023, the trial court entered an order confirming the oral rulings challenged in their mandamus petition.
Specifically, relators complain that the trial court erred in overruling relators' objections to four discovery requests served by real party in interest Series 2 - Virage Master LP ("Virage"), including Request for Production Nos. 12, 14, and 15, and Interrogatory No. 4. The trial court's October 17, 2023 order required relators to amend their responses and serve all relevant documents in response to these discovery requests on or before October 31, 2023.
On October 26, 2023, relators filed an "Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief to Stay Trial Court's Oct. 17 Order Compelling Production." In their motion, relators request that the Court "stay the Oct[ober] 17[, 2023] Order pending this Court's consideration of the merits of [r]elators' petition for writ of mandamus." Relators argue that the Virage has "requested vastly overbroad financial records that bear no relevance to its breach of contract action," and that "[w]ithout a stay, [relator] will be forced to produced highly invasive financial documents and information . . . before the Court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits of [r]elators' mandamus petition."
Virage filed a response to relators' emergency motion on October 30, 2023. In its response, Virage argued that relators are not entitled to a stay as "none of the arguments" offered by relators "have any merit." Virage argued that the discovery requests in question have been "twice considered" by the trial court to be "properly tailored to uncover evidence regarding Virage's missing" collateral and to "investigate the full extent of [relators'] breaches of the contract."
Relators' emergency motion seeks a general stay of enforcement of the trial court's October 17, 2023 order because "[a]n essential part of [r]elators' mandamus petition is [r]elators' argument that Virage's four discovery requests for [r]elators' financial information are overly broad." Notably however, the trial court's October 17, 2023 order addresses more than these four discovery requests. In the October 17, 2023 order, included in a supplemental mandamus record submitted by relators, the trial court ruled on whether to sustain or overrule relators' objections to seventeen discovery requests. Of those, the trial court sustained relators' objections to two discovery requests-Request for Production Nos. 13 and 16. The trial court further "granted" the relief requested by Virage, overruling relators' objections, with respect to the eleven other discovery requests in accordance with an agreement of the parties.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part relators' "Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief to Stay Trial Court's Oct. 17 Order Compelling Production." See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. The Court stays enforcement of the trial court's October 17, 2023 order only as to relators' obligation to serve supplemental written responses and/or produce all responsive, non-privileged documents to Request for Production Nos. 12, 14, and 15, and Interrogatory No. 4. This order does not stay relators' obligation to comply with the remaining portions of the trial court's October 17, 2023 order.
This stay shall remain in effect until further order of this Court or disposition of relators' petition for writ of mandamus.
It is so ORDERED.