Summary
ordering trial court stay lifted for limited purpose
Summary of this case from City of Sealy v. Town Park Ctr.Opinion
NO. 03-16-00580-CV
09-20-2016
Aaron V. Bishop; Ronald J. Booker; Richard Burns; Albert Cortez, Jr.; Eric De Los Santos; Jovita Lopez; Aurelio Martinez; Norris McKenzie; Tomas Montez; Henry D. Moreno; Ricardo Pelayo; Jesse Prado; Oscar Ramirez; James Stanesic; Lester Vanzura; Roderick Wesley; and Monroe Yarbrough, Jr., Appellants v. The City of Austin, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-14-002459, HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDINGORDER
PER CURIAM
Appellants filed this interlocutory appeal challenging orders granting pleas to the jurisdiction in favor of the City of Austin in the underlying suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8). Trial court proceedings were automatically stayed. See id. § 51.014(b).
The parties filed a joint motion to lift the stay of trial court proceedings for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to sign confidentiality orders. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a), 29.5. The parties' motion also requests that we direct the district clerk to supplement the record in this appeal within ten days of the district court's signing of confidentiality orders. Lastly, the parties request that we direct the district clerk not to include certain pleadings in the clerk's record because those pleadings, in the parties' view, contain information or records that are confidential by law.
We grant the parties' motion in part. We lift the stay of trial court proceedings for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to sign confidentiality orders, and we direct the district clerk to supplement the appellate record in this cause with those orders within ten days after the court signs them. However, we reserve for the district court the determination of whether certain pleadings contain information or records that are confidential by law and should be excluded from the clerk's record.
It is ordered on September 20, 2016. Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland