in Re Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC,Michael Sprague and J. Christopher Diamond

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 24, 2020
Docket01-20-00250-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC,Michael Sprague and J. Christopher Diamond (in Re Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC,Michael Sprague and J. Christopher Diamond) 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 Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC,Michael Sprague and J. Christopher Diamond, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC, Michael Sprague, Individually, and J. Christopher Diamond, Individually

Appellate case number: 01-20-00250-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-76096

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

Relators, Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC, Michael Sprague, and J. Christopher Diamond, have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court’s March 2, 2020 order denying relators’ motion to compel, seeking the production of documents withheld by real parties in interest, Coastal Cargo of Texas, Inc. and Tokio Marine HCC, on claims of privilege. In connection with their petition, relators have filed a motion for temporary relief, seeking to stay “all proceedings in the trial court” until a resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. According to the motion, the real parties in interest are unopposed to the request for a stay of the trial court proceedings. The motion is granted. “[A]ll proceedings in the trial court” in Coastal Cargo of Texas, Inc. and Tokio Marine HCC v. Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC, Michael Sprague, Individually, and J. Christopher Diamond, Individually, Cause No. 2017-76096, pending in the 127th District Court of Harris County are stayed. The stay is effective until disposition of relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus or further order of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). The petition for a writ of mandamus remains pending. The Court requests a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus from the real parties in interest. The response, if any, is due no later than 20 days from the date of this order. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___March 24, 2020___

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC,Michael Sprague and J. Christopher Diamond, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sprague-rustam-diamond-pcmichael-sprague-and-j-christopher-texapp-2020.