Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-04-00884-CV
____________
IN RE SEITEL, INC., Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On September 10, 2004, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In its petition, relator sought to have this court direct the Honorable Susan Criss to set aside an order compelling discovery signed on September 9, 2004.[1] Relator claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering relator, a non-party to the litigation below, to produce allegedly privileged documents concerning seismic testing in the absence of proper service of a subpoena, notice of the hearing, or an opportunity to present evidence of its claimed privilege. On September 10, 2004, we issued an order staying the trial court=s discovery order pending resolution of this petition.
Relator also filed a Motion to Quash, Motion for Protection and Objections to Discovery under cause number 2004-48364 in the 189th District Court in Harris County, Texas. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(e) (permitting motion for protection from subpoena to be filed in county of service of subpoena). A hearing on the motion was begun on September 8, 2004, and continued on September 13, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the parties dictated a rule 11 agreement concerning the discovery dispute into the record. On September 21, 2004, the Houston court entered an order on relator=s motion, finding that the seismic data sought to be produced was a trade secret, but that real parties had met their burden to establish the materiality and necessity for the information. See In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 730, 732 (Tex. 2003); In re Continental Gen. Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609, 612 (Tex. 1998) (holding trade secrets may be ordered produced when discovery is Anecessary for a fair adjudication@). The court also entered a protective order to preserve the confidentiality of relator=s trade secrets.
The parties= rule 11 agreement and the September 21, 2004 orders from the Houston court have superseded the September 9, 2004 order entered by the Galveston court that is the subject of this proceeding. The scope of the discovery sought and agreed to be produced has been substantially modified from that originally ordered. Any subsequent dispute concerning production of discovery in the underlying case must be resolved in a new proceeding.
Accordingly, we dismiss relator=s petition for writ of mandamus as moot. This court=s September 10, 2004 stay order is vacated.
PER CURIAM
Petition Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2004.
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Fowler and Seymore.
[1] The underlying suit is styled Sandra Adair, et al. v. Enron Corp., EOG Resources Inc., Veritas DGC Land Inc., Ameridian Technologies, Inc., St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., J. Nichols & Company, LLC, City of League City and City of Dickinson, under cause number 01CV1068, in the 212th District Court of Galveston County, Texas.