in Re Cirrus Design Corporation D/B/A Cirrus Aircraft
This text of in Re Cirrus Design Corporation D/B/A Cirrus Aircraft (in Re Cirrus Design Corporation D/B/A Cirrus Aircraft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-22-00562-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION D/B/A CIRRUS AIRCRAFT
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
ORDER
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Order Per Curiam
On November 28, 2022, relator Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft
(Cirrus) filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary
relief. By petition for writ of mandamus, Cirrus contends that the trial court erred by issuing
a discovery order compelling Cirrus to produce discovery that: (1) concerns “incidents
without similarity to the accident at issue” in the underlying lawsuit, (2) “imposes a heavy
burden on Cirrus without the likelihood of any benefit” to the opposing parties, and
(3) requires production “beyond the permissible bounds of discovery.” By emergency
motion for temporary relief, Cirrus seeks to stay the trial court’s October 20, 2022 order compelling discovery pending the resolution of this original proceeding.
This Court, having examined and fully considered the emergency motion for
temporary relief, is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the
emergency motion for temporary relief, and we order the trial court’s order of October 20,
2022, compelling relator to respond to discovery, to be stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until
the case is finally decided.”).
We request the real parties in interest, Scott Carrol Jorgenson, individually and as
representative of the estate of Carrol Vester Jorgenson, or any others whose interest
would be directly affected by the relief sought, such as Armando Lopez, Terry Lopez, and
Armando Lopez and Terry Lopez as next friends of A.L., a minor, to file a response to the
petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this
order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the 29th day of November, 2022.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Cirrus Design Corporation D/B/A Cirrus Aircraft, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cirrus-design-corporation-dba-cirrus-aircraft-texapp-2022.