Opinion
No. 04-16-00131-CV
07-22-2016
REGENT CARE CENTER AT MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant v. William HOLLIS, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 380950
Honorable Karen A. Crouch, Judge Presiding
ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant's case for want of prosecution. The reporter's record from the hearing on appellant's motion to reinstate held on February 26, 2016, has been filed. The reporter's record from a summary judgment hearing held on December 3, 2015 has been filed. Appellant's brief is due on July 28, 2016.
On July 20, 2016, appellant filed objections to the reporter's record and a motion to order the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 34.6(e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 34.6(e) provides that if a dispute arises about the accuracy of the reporter's record after the reporter's record has been filed in appellate court, the appellate court may submit the dispute to the trial court for resolution. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e).
In its Rule 34.6(e) motion, appellant objects to the reporter's record from the summary judgment hearing. Attached to appellant's motion is an affidavit from the court reporter stating that the hard drive of her computer was corrupted, that she tried to recover the record of the summary judgment hearing, but that most of it was irretrievable. The court reporter further stated that she was unable to affirm the accuracy of this record and that the "only segment of the transcript that [she] can guarantee with any confidence is the Court's denial of summary judgment." Appellant claims that, through no fault of its own, it is "completely prohibited" from pursuing its appeal of the trial court's dismissal judgment.
In a summary judgment, a reporter's record is neither necessary nor appropriate to the purposes of such a hearing. Schneider Nat'l Carrriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264, 291 n.141 (Tex. 2004). Furthermore, in the present case, the summary judgment, which involves the merits of appellant's claim, is not relevant to the judgment challenged in this appeal, the judgment dismissing for want of prosecution. Appellant's Rule 34.6(e) motion is therefore DENIED.
Appellant also filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief, requesting a sixty-day extension of time to file its brief. Appellant's motion for extension of time is GRANTED IN PART. Appellant's brief is due on August 29, 2016.
/s/_________
Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of July, 2016.
/s/_________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court