In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-15-00390-CV
____________________
IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS
_______________________________________________________ ______________
Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 14-05-05339-CV
________________________________________________________ _____________
ORDER
The State of Texas filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator is the
petitioner in an eminent domain proceeding in Cause No. 14-05-05339-CV, State
of Texas v. Harper & Manning Investment Properties, LLC. Relator seeks a writ
compelling the Honorable Claudia Laird, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 2
of Montgomery County, Texas, to vacate the trial court’s Order Granting Motion
to Compel and Order Denying the State’s Motion for Protective Order, and to grant
the State’s Motion for Protective Order. We note our jurisdiction over this matter
and the parties. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004).
1
Relator filed a motion to stay the challenged order. See Tex. R. App. P.
52.10(a). Relator alleges that prejudice will result if it is required to disclose
information that Relator contends is protected by the consulting expert privilege
before the issues raised in the petition for writ of mandamus can be resolved.
The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It
is ORDERED that the trial court’s Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel and
the State’s Motion for Protective Order, signed September 11, 2015, in Cause No.
14-05-05339-CV, and any discovery, depositions, or production of documents
compelled thereby, is STAYED until our Opinion issues or until further order of
this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of the Relator as a
condition to any relief herein granted.
The response of the real party in interest, Harper & Manning Investment
Properties, LLC, is due October 5, 2015.
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.
ORDER ENTERED September 24, 2015.
PER CURIAM
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2