In re Wells Fargo Bank

Full title: IN RE WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Dec 21, 2016

NUMBER 13-16-00691-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 21, 2016)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-16-00691-CV

12-21-2016

IN RE WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Per Curiam

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Per CuriamOrder

Relator, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on December 20, 2016. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its December 9, 2016 discovery order requiring relator to produce "confidential records concerning unrelated, non-party customers of [relator] that are protected from disclosure under . . . the [Texas] Finance Code" and requiring relator to "respond to overly broad discovery requests that seek information which is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." See TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 59.006 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Relator has also filed an emergency motion for stay seeking to stay enforcement of the December 9, 2016 discovery order until thirty days after disposition of this original proceeding.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the emergency motion for stay, is of the opinion that it should be granted in part and denied in part. This Court GRANTS the emergency motion, in part, and orders the December 9, 2016 discovery order to be STAYED with regard to the discovery requests that are the subject of this original proceeding: interrogatory numbers one, two, three, five, six, and seven, and request for production numbers four, five, six, and seven. This stay will remain in effect until the case is finally decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) ("Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided."). All other relief sought by the emergency motion is DENIED.

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Rogelio Rodriguez and Daniela Rodriguez, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See id. R.52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 21st day of December, 2016.