John Washington, Karen Clark, Matthew Roach, Kimberly Gates, and TUV Rheinland AIA Services, LLC v. Onecis Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

John Washington, Karen Clark, Matthew Roach, Kimberly Gates, and TUV Rheinland AIA Services, LLC v. Onecis Insurance Company

DecidedDecember 31, 2019

Docket14-19-00807-CV

StatusPublished

This text of John Washington, Karen Clark, Matthew Roach, Kimberly Gates, and TUV Rheinland AIA Services, LLC v. Onecis Insurance Company (John Washington, Karen Clark, Matthew Roach, Kimberly Gates, and TUV Rheinland AIA Services, LLC v. Onecis Insurance Company) 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

John Washington, Karen Clark, Matthew Roach, Kimberly Gates, and TUV Rheinland AIA Services, LLC v. Onecis Insurance Company, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to Supplement Denied; Motion to Seal Denied in Part; Order filed December 31, 2019

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-19-00807-CV ____________

JOHN WASHINGTON, KAREN CLARK, MATTHEW ROACH, KIMBERLY GATES, AND TUV RHEINLAND AIA SERVICES, LLC, Appellants

V.

ONECIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-60173

ORDER

On November 25, 2019, appellee filed a motion, asking this court seal:

• Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 17-18, 20, and 22-36; • Defendants’ Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; • Defendants’ Exhibits 4, 8-13, and 18; • Exhibits 4 and 9 to the Deposition of Karen Ann Clark; • Exhibit 12 to the Deposition of Matthew Roach; and • Exhibit 9 to the Deposition of Gary Andrews Appellee has not provided this court with a permanent sealing order from the trial court that complies with the requirements of Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that seals the requested exhibits. Among other things, Rule 76a requires the sealing order to state, “the specific reasons for finding and concluding whether the showing required by paragraph 1, has been made; the specific portions of court records which are to be sealed; and the time period for which the sealed portions of the court records are to be sealed.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(6).

Appellee has 30 days from the date of this order, to provide a supplemental clerk’s record with a permanent sealing order pertaining to the above listed documents that complies with Rule 76a. Failure to do so will result in the denial of appellee’s motion.

In its motion, appellee further requested this court supplement its appellate record with an exhibit and a deposition that was not a part of the underlying proceeding. That motion is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.

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

Motion to Supplement Denied; Motion to Seal Denied in Part; Order filed December 31, 2019

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-19-00807-CV ____________

JOHN WASHINGTON, KAREN CLARK, MATTHEW ROACH, KIMBERLY GATES, AND TUV RHEINLAND AIA SERVICES, LLC, Appellants

V.

ONECIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-60173

ORDER

On November 25, 2019, appellee filed a motion, asking this court seal:

• Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 17-18, 20, and 22-36; • Defendants’ Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; • Defendants’ Exhibits 4, 8-13, and 18; • Exhibits 4 and 9 to the Deposition of Karen Ann Clark; • Exhibit 12 to the Deposition of Matthew Roach; and • Exhibit 9 to the Deposition of Gary Andrews Appellee has not provided this court with a permanent sealing order from the trial court that complies with the requirements of Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that seals the requested exhibits. Among other things, Rule 76a requires the sealing order to state, “the specific reasons for finding and concluding whether the showing required by paragraph 1, has been made; the specific portions of court records which are to be sealed; and the time period for which the sealed portions of the court records are to be sealed.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(6).

Appellee has 30 days from the date of this order, to provide a supplemental clerk’s record with a permanent sealing order pertaining to the above listed documents that complies with Rule 76a. Failure to do so will result in the denial of appellee’s motion.

In its motion, appellee further requested this court supplement its appellate record with an exhibit and a deposition that was not a part of the underlying proceeding. That motion is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John Washington, Karen Clark, Matthew Roach, Kimberly Gates, and TUV Rheinland AIA Services, LLC v. Onecis Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-washington-karen-clark-matthew-roach-kimberly-gates-and-tuv-texapp-2019.