Technox Engineering and Services Private, Ltd v. Sunwoo Co., Ltd.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 27, 2022
• Docket: 01-22-00006-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Technox Engineering and Services Private Ltd. v. Sunwoo Robotec Co., Ltd. Appellate case number: 01-22-00006-CV Trial court case number: 2020-06784 Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County On December 20, 2021, appellant, Technox Engineering and Services Private Ltd. (“Technox”) filed a “Notice of Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal” challenging the trial court’s December 16, 2021 order denying its “Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a). On June 20, 2022, Technox filed an “Emergency Motion to Stay Trial Court Discovery.” In its motion, Technox states that, despite the pending appeal from the trial court’s order, appellee, Sunwoo Robotec Co., Ltd. (“Sunwoo”), “propounded substantive discovery” on Technox, including requests for production, requests for admission, “and a litany of [i]nterrogatories.” According to Technox, its responses to this written discovery are currently due by June 30, 2022. In its emergency motion, Technox requests that this Court stay its obligation to respond to this discovery “pending disposition of the accelerated appeal,” because “[i]n the event [Technox’s] pending interlocutory appeal is successful, [it] will completely cease to be a party to the underlying case,” rendering the discovery moot. On June 22, 2022, Sunwoo filed a “Response to Appellant’s Emergency Motion to Stay Trial Court Discovery.” At the outset of its response, Sunwoo notes that Technox “made no effort to confer with [appellee] about the relief sought in the emergency motion, as the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). Sunwoo goes on to argue that, in order to obtain a stay of trial court proceedings, Technox “must demonstrate some undue prejudice or hardship beyond the interlocutory appeal’s mere existence.” Sunwoo contends that “neither prejudice nor hardship” were established, and Technox argued “only that it must expend effort to respond” to the discovery requests. However, Sunwoo argues, “[t]his reason is not enough to support a stay.” Technox’s emergency motion to stay trial court discovery is denied. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ April Farris_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __June 27, 2022____