In Re Jay W. Colvin III v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00943-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 26, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00943-CV ——————————— IN RE JAY W. COLVIN III, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jay W. Colvin III, filed a petition for writ of mandamus arguing that

the trial court abused its discretion by granting the “Application for Court Order of

Compliance with Arbitrator’s Subpoena” filed by real party in interest, Emily

Colvin, requiring relator to produce documents in response to a subpoena.1 Relator

1 The underlying case is Emily Colvin v. Gregory B. Yost and Brock Upham Yost, PLLC, cause no. 2023-60811, in the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Dawn Rogers presiding. requested that the Court “issue a writ of mandamus commanding the trial court to

vacate its discovery order and grant an order quashing” the subpoena.

In connection with his mandamus petition, relator also filed an “Emergency

Motion for Temporary Relief.” In his motion, relator requested that the Court stay

enforcement of the trial court’s order pending this Court’s consideration of his

petition for writ of mandamus. On November 18, 2025, the Court granted the

motion, staying enforcement of the trial court’s order requiring relator to produce

documents in response to the subpoena pending this Court’s review of the petition.

The Court also requested a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and

on January 2, 2026, real party in interest filed a response to the petition. Relator

filed a reply in support of his petition on January 12, 2026.

We conclude that relator has failed to establish he is entitled to mandamus

relief, and therefore the Court lifts the stay imposed by our November 18, 2025 order

and denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

2 We note that the subject “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Court Order of Compliance with Arbitrator’s Subpoena” provides in paragraphs 2 and 3 that relator is to produce an “accounting” related to the purchase or sale of certain properties. This does not order relator to create an accounting related to the properties but to produce existing accountings in relator’s possession and control.