in Re Charles Watson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2021
• Docket: 14-21-00370-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed August 31, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00370-CV

IN RE CHARLES WATSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-28746-B

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On July 6, 2021, relator Charles Watson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Dedra Davis, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of Harris County, to set aside her June 2, 2021 order granting real party in interest’s motion to compel production of previously withheld information and documents and (1) allow relator to withhold the information and documents or (2) alternatively, allow relator to produce a privilege log for in camera review.

Relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not included in the mandamus record a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). For example, relator has not provided a copy of his response to real party in interest’s motion to compel the production of previously withheld information and documents. Relator also has not included a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. See id. 52.7(a)(2).

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny relator’s motion to stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Spain. (Spain, J., dissenting).