in Re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

Docket01-16-00111-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc. (in Re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

in Re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc., Relators

Appellate case number: 01-16-00111-CV

Trial court case number: 1048525

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On February 11, 2016, the relators, Kurtz Properties, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the respondent trial judge’s February 4, 2016 order requiring disclosure of relators’ trade secret “customers” and “financial performance” information. With the petition, relators have filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that this Court stay relators’ duties to respond to any deposition questions or to any requests for production of documents relating to the trade secret “customers” and “financial performance” information, pending this Court’s resolution of the petition. Relators’ motion states that, while the trial court’s order does not have a deadline for compliance, they could be re-noticed for depositions on these topics at any time and do not want to be held in contempt for non-compliance. No response has been filed to the motion or petition. Accordingly, we grant the relators’ motion and ORDER that the relators’ duties to respond to any deposition questions or to any requests for production of documents relating to the trade secret “customers” and “financial performance” information are stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the mandamus petition in this Court is finally decided or this Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. See id. Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See id. at 52.10(c). Further, the Court requests a response to the mandamus petition by the real party in interest, Harris County. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this order. See id. 2, 52.4. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes  Acting individually Date: February 16, 2016

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc., Relators

Appellate case number: 01-16-00111-CV

Trial court case number: 1048525

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On February 11, 2016, the relators, Kurtz Properties, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the respondent trial judge’s February 4, 2016 order requiring disclosure of relators’ trade secret “customers” and “financial performance” information. With the petition, relators have filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that this Court stay relators’ duties to respond to any deposition questions or to any requests for production of documents relating to the trade secret “customers” and “financial performance” information, pending this Court’s resolution of the petition. Relators’ motion states that, while the trial court’s order does not have a deadline for compliance, they could be re-noticed for depositions on these topics at any time and do not want to be held in contempt for non-compliance. No response has been filed to the motion or petition. Accordingly, we grant the relators’ motion and ORDER that the relators’ duties to respond to any deposition questions or to any requests for production of documents relating to the trade secret “customers” and “financial performance” information are stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the mandamus petition in this Court is finally decided or this Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. See id. Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See id. at 52.10(c). Further, the Court requests a response to the mandamus petition by the real party in interest, Harris County. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this order. See id. 2, 52.4. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes  Acting individually Date: February 16, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston Foam Plastics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kurtz-properties-ltd-a-texas-limited-partnership-and-houston-foam-texapp-2016.