In Re: Redbird Trails Apartments, Bridgeway Capital, LLC and NCM Management, LTD. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 17, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00332-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENY and Opinion Filed April 17, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00332-CV

IN RE REDBIRD TRAILS APARTMENTS, BRIDGEWAY CAPITAL, LLC AND NCM MANAGEMENT, LTD., Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00945-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Before the Court are relators’ April 10, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

and emergency motion for temporary stay of trial. In their petition, relators challenge

the trial court’s order denying their motion for discovery of documents considered

confidential under the Texas Family Code. They complain that the trial court abused

its discretion by determining after an in camera inspection that none of the requested

documents were relevant.

Relators’ burden is to provide this Court with a sufficient record for

mandamus review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. This burden requires them “to request

that any documents submitted to the trial court for in camera inspection be carried forward under seal so that the appellate court can evaluate this information.” In re

Barnes, 655 S.W.3d 658, 668 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, orig. proceeding); see also

Lesher v. Coyel, 435 S.W.3d 423, 431–32 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied)

(noting that if documents have been submitted for in camera inspection, complaining

party must request that the exhibits be carried forward under seal so that appellate

court can evaluate them).

Here, the mandamus record does not include the records inspected by the trial

court in camera, and nothing before us reflects that relators have asked the trial court

to carry the documents forward to this Court under seal. We are unable to assess the

merits of the petition without them. Accordingly, relators have failed to meet their

burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record, and we deny the petition.

Having denied the petition, we also deny the emergency motion as moot.

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE 230332F.P05

–2–