Storable, Inc.; RedNova Labs, Inc. (d/B/A storEDGE); Sitelink Software, LLC; Easy Storage Solutions, LLC; Bader Co.; And Property First Group, LP v. Safelease Insurance Services, LLC

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00020-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/27/2025 9:39 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS March 27, 2025 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Via E-Filing Clerk

Mr. Christoper A. Prine Fifteenth Court of Appeals Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 12852 Austin, TX 78711

Re: Storable, Inc., et al. v. SafeLease Ins. Servs., LLC, No. 15-24-00020-CV

Mr. Prine:

We write on behalf of Appellee SafeLease Insurance Services, LLC in response to Appellants’ (collectively “Storable”) same-dated letter regarding the state of the appellate record in the above captioned and numbered matter, which is currently pending before this Court. Storable initiated an accelerated, interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction while electing to litigate that order further in the trial court. Now, pointing to delays it created in the trial court, Storable suggests that this accelerated appeal should be drastically decelerated. Any delay in this matter is inappropriate and should not be countenanced. At the outset, Storable conferenced the relief requested in its letter with SafeLease from March 18th through March 20th. Storable asked whether SafeLease would oppose a request to delay briefing deadlines until unidentified “filings relevant to the appeal” could be included in the appellate record. SafeLease, knowing that Storable had noticed an appeal from the original temporary injunction order, and believing the appellate record to be complete with respect to that order, opposed Storable’s request. Without explanation—or even prior notice to SafeLease— Storable’s March 26 letter omits that fact entirely and did not alert the Court to SafeLease’s opposition. In any event, Storable has taken an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction, which Rule 28.1(a) requires be accelerated. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a). The Appellate Rules’ strictures include several interlocking mechanisms to guarantee that accelerated appeals are handled expeditiously: post-trial motions do not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal, R. 28.1(b); this Court’s ability to extend the deadline for filing a record is constrained to 10-day extensions at a time, R. 35.3(c); times for submitting briefs are shortened, R. 38.6(a), (b); and this Court is permitted to proceed without the clerk’s record—or even briefs by the parties—if it sees fit. R. 28.1(e). These provisions are flatly incompatible with Storable’s request for an open-ended delay. To Storable’s credit, it eventually acknowledges its reason for asking for such an unusual open-ended delay: the record on appeal as it exists right now does not include the materials it would prefer to rely on in its opening brief. Storable Letter at 2. That is a confession regarding the merits of Storable’s appeal, not a basis for this Court to grant Storable an indefinite extension. But in any event, the condition of the record—like the condition of every appellate record—is the function of Storable’s litigation choices to date. If Storable there was thought a document plainly relevant to its case, it should have presented that document to the trial court in the first instance rather than attempting to forestall the appeal it has sought: like every other appellate litigant, Storable must live with the record it has, not the record it wishes it had. Even if this Court were inclined to entertain Storable’s request, Storable fails to articulate a principled limit to its request. While Storable says there will be a hearing “next month” and that a “subsequent order” potentially sealing parts of the record is important to this appeal, it does not suggest what those materials are, why they might be material to this appeal, or why they have failed to introduce those materials to the trial court yet. In other words, there is no way for this Court to know, and no way for Storable to predict, when the record Storable desires will materialize. At bottom, Storable has not explained to the Court, or even to SafeLease, why any protective orders or orders sealing documents have any bearing on this appeal, which presents the straightforward question of whether injunctive relief should have issued. This Court should issue a briefing schedule and maintain the appropriate pace for this accelerated appeal that Storable instituted. If Storable would like an extension of its briefing deadline, it can ask for one at an appropriate time. If Storable needs to supplement the record, it can do so at the appropriate time. And if Storable asks whether SafeLease opposes any such relief, as it must, it should notify the Court of SafeLease’s response.

Sincerely,

/s/ Judd E. Stone II Judd E. Stone II STONE HILTON PLLC 600 Congress Ave., Suite 2350 Austin, TX 78701 judd@stonehilton.com (737) 465-3897

2 | Page Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Bonnie Chester on behalf of Judd Stone Bar No. 24076720 accounts@stonehilton.com Envelope ID: 98952231 Filing Code Description: Letter Filing Description: Response Letter regarding Record on Appeal Status as of 3/27/2025 9:49 AM CST

Associated Case Party: SafeLease Insurance Services, LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Delonda Dean ddean@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Yetter Coleman efile@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Cody Coll cody@stonehilton.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Courtney Smith csmith@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Luke A.Schamel lschamel@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Christopher Hilton chris@stonehilton.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Judd Stone Judd@stonehilton.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Alyssa Smith asmith@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Bonnie Chester bonnie@stonehilton.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Alexander Dvorscak alex@stonehilton.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Shannon Smith ssmith@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

R. Paul Yetter pyetter@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Susanna R.Allen sallen@yettercoleman.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Rosalinda Luna rosie@stonehilton.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Storable, Inc.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Dale Wainwright dale.wainwright@gtlaw.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Justin Bernstein bernsteinju@gtlaw.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Ray Torgerson rtorgerson@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Carolyn Reed creed@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Jonna Summers jsummers@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Bonnie Chester on behalf of Judd Stone Bar No. 24076720 accounts@stonehilton.com Envelope ID: 98952231 Filing Code Description: Letter Filing Description: Response Letter regarding Record on Appeal Status as of 3/27/2025 9:49 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Storable, Inc.

Jonna Summers jsummers@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Lakshmi Kumar lkumar@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Dolores Brunelle dbrunelle@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Liza Eoff leoff@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT

Neil KentonAlexander kalexander@porterhedges.com 3/27/2025 9:39:32 AM SENT