The opinion
Opinion issued July 24, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00404-CV
———————————
IN RE ROBYN GORDON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 19, 2014, relator Robyn Gordon filed an amended petition for writ
of mandamus and an amended emergency motion for temporary stay, seeking a
stay of the trial court’s May 12, 2014 “Order Denying Third-Party Robyn
Gordon’s Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order to Compel Discovery.”1 The
1
The underlying case is First in Rescue Safety & Training, LLC v. Robert
Jackson and Code Red Safety and Rental, LLC, Cause No. 2013-67254, in
the 151st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Mike
Engelhart presiding.
trial court had previously granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the relator to
answer the deposition question of who was her home internet provider, and the
follow-up questions about whether she was refusing to answer that question and
why, and to comply with the subpoena duces tecum to produce her home internet
provider billing statement.
On the same day, May 19, 2014, we granted in part Relator’s motion to stay
as to the portion of the May 12, 2014 order that required Relator to answer the
above deposition questions. In that same Order, we denied in part Relator’s
motion to stay the trial court’s order, insofar as it ordered Relator, within 10 days
of the date of the trial court’s order, to comply with a subpoena duces tecum
requesting production of her home internet provider billing statement.
On June 16, 2014, real party in interest First in Rescue Safety and Training,
LLC (“FIRST”) filed their response contending that this amended petition is now
moot because Relator complied with the subpoena duces tecum and produced the
billing statement. FIRST further waived any right to answers to the deposition
questions that Relator had refused to answer. See FIRST’s Resp. to Pet. for Writ
of Mandamus at 10.
On July 10, 2014, the Clerk issued a Notice that this Court may dismiss this
amended petition for want of jurisdiction unless Relator filed a written response by
3:00 p.m. on July 15, 2014. Relator did not timely respond to the Notice.
2
Accordingly, because the requested information has been produced in
discovery, there is no longer a live controversy between Relator and FIRST. See
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005). Thus, the
amended petition is dismissed as moot for want of jurisdiction. See In re Sierra
Club, 420 S.W.3d 153, 156–57 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding); see
also Tex. A&M Univ.–Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 290–91 (Tex.
2011); cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
We dismiss the amended petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
3