Legal Opinion · Dissent

in Re Eurecat US, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)

Decided February 27, 2014No. 14-13-00852-CVPublished

1DissentSharon MeCALLY, Justice

“Eurecat U.S., Inc. may not serve discovery on any customers or potential customers of catalyst activation services identified in the letter from Mr. Touchstone to Mr. Escobar dated September 18, 2013.” This order is a discovery injunction. I would grant this Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.

A. Introduction

Though not clear from the face of the trial court’s order, review of the September 18, 2013 letter referenced shows that the order prevents Eurecat from sending any discovery to its own customers. From the moment it filed the instant…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
  3. In Re Ford Motor Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Lunsford v. MorrisTexas Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. Johnson, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API