Cortez v. Johnston
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7454
Tex. App.2012Background
- Cortez appeals a trial court order holding certain documents filed with the Dallas County District Clerk are “court records” under Rule 76a.
- The dispute stems from Cortez and Johnston’s litigation relating to Johnston’s deposition and related discovery.
- Johnston filed a motion to compel and for sanctions, attaching a sealed envelope of documents (including deposition and Commission filing), after Cortez nonsuited claims.
- The trial court conducted in-camera review and later Cortez withdrew sealing requests, proceeding to determine whether the documents were court records.
- Intervenors (Dallas Morning News/Texas Lawyer and Judge Lowy) asserted access rights to the records under Rule 76a.
- Rule 76a defines court records with specific carve-outs; the court concluded the challenged documents fall within these definitions and are court records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the contested documents court records under Rule 76a(2)? | Cortez contends records are not court records. | Johnston contends records fall within 76a definitions as filed in connection with the case. | Yes; the documents are court records under 76a(2)(a). |
| Does a post-nonsuit filing retain court-record status for discovery materials? | Cortez argues records lose status after nonsuit. | Johnston argues court retains power to sanction; records remain court records. | Court records status persists; trial court had authority to consider sanctions notwithstanding nonsuit. |
| Do unfiled discovery materials fall within Rule 76a(2)(c)? | Cortez claims unfiled discovery should be exempt from court-record status. | Johnston argues unfiled discovery that concerns public health/safety may be court records under 76a(2)(c). | No; unfiled discovery here falls within 76a(2)(c) where applicable, and the court reviewed in camera findings before concluding records are court records. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its Rule 76a findings? | Cortez asserts potential abuse by not allowing ex parte explanations and sealing considerations. | Johnston asserts proper in-camera review and factual findings support court-record status. | No abuse of discretion; trial court had substantial evidence to support status as court records. |
Key Cases Cited
- FKM P’ship, Ltd. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Houston Sys., 255 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2008) (trial court may determine public-record status under Rule 76a; discretionary review of record status)
- Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & S. Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) (advisory opinions prohibited; outlines limits on appellate review)
- Morrow v. Corbin, 122 Tex. 553, 62 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1933) (limits on advisory opinions by appellate courts)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (trial court retains jurisdiction over collateral matters after nonsuit)
- Roberts v. West, 128 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003) (burden on party seeking to classify documents as court records)
- Biffle v. Eli Lilly & Co., 868 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993) (discovery materials and court-record classifications; emphasis on evidence-based determination)
- Upjohn Co. v. Freeman, 906 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995) (standards for evaluating discovery materials and court-record status)