From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Sedeno-Suarez

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Feb 6, 2009
No. 14-08-01080-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2009)

Opinion

No. 14-08-01080-CV

Opinion filed February 6, 2009.

Original Proceeding.

Writ of Mandamus.

Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES, and Justices GUZMAN and BROWN.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On November 26, 2008, relator Heriberto Sedeno-Suarez, M.D. filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004); Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, relator — the defendant in an underlying personal-injury lawsuit — contends that the respondent abused its discretion by entering a protective order on September 26, 2008 abating written discovery and placing limitations on his ability to depose the plaintiff and her family.

Respondent is the Honorable Tony Lindsay, the presiding judge of the 280th district court of Harris County, Texas.

On August 28, 2008, we denied relator's similar mandamus petition arising from a different protective order. See In re Sedeno-Suarez, No. 14-08-00740-CV, 2008 WL 4310098 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 28, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

We requested a response from the real party in interest, Genoveva Mijares. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4. That response was received on January 20, 2009. On February 3, however, relator notified us in a "supplemental letter brief" that the trial court had withdrawn the protective order in question on January 26. Therefore, the relief requested in relator's mandamus petition — that is, that we vacate the trial court's protective order — has become moot.

Relator has requested that we exercise our mandamus jurisdiction to review the trial court's January 26 order, which prevents relator from conducting discovery unless he agrees to waive any constitutional rights he may have under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because relator's supplemental filing does not comply with Rule 52.3 in several respects, and relator has not filed a mandamus record to support his latest request for relief, we may not consider relator's February 3 request for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7.

Accordingly, we deny as moot relator's petition for writ of mandamus arising from the trial court's September 26, 2008 protective order.

Our resolution of relator's November 26, 2008 mandamus petition does not address the trial court's January 26, 2009 order.


Summaries of

In re Sedeno-Suarez

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Feb 6, 2009
No. 14-08-01080-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2009)
Case details for

In re Sedeno-Suarez

Case Details

Full title:IN RE HERIBERTO SEDENO-SUAREZ, M.D., Relator

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Feb 6, 2009

Citations

No. 14-08-01080-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2009)