Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, Inc. v. the City of Argyle, Texas The City of Hickory Creek, Texas The City of Oak Point, Texas And the City of Ponder, Texas
02-16-00052-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- TVRJ (a Texas nonprofit) sued four Texas cities challenging sex-offender residency-restriction ordinances, asserting associational standing on behalf of members who must register as sex offenders.
- Cities filed pleas to the jurisdiction arguing TVRJ lacked associational standing.
- TVRJ moved for an order to file evidentiary documents under seal and for a protective order to prevent disclosure of identifying information for its members (to be used to oppose the pleas).
- The trial court denied TVRJ’s combined motion; TVRJ appealed interlocutorily from the denial of both the sealing and protective-order requests.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether (1) Rule 76a sealing procedures could be applied prospectively to unfiled/tendered documents, and (2) TVRJ was required to obtain a protective order before identifying members by pseudonyms for standing purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 76a temporary sealing order could be issued for documents not yet filed or tendered in camera | TVRJ argued the court should permit it to file affidavits under seal in advance, to protect members’ identities when opposing pleas to the jurisdiction | Cities argued Rule 76a applies only to court records actually filed or tendered; prospective sealing is improper | Denied — Rule 76a applies only to court records; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying a prospective sealing order for unfiled documents |
| Whether TVRJ must obtain a protective order before identifying members by pseudonyms to establish associational standing | TVRJ sought a protective order preventing public disclosure of member identities and sought permission to use initials/pseudonyms in filings | Cities opposed shielding identifying information without a showing of specific injury or proper procedure | Denied without prejudice — association may identify members by pseudonyms/initials for standing; protective order not required now; trial court didn’t abuse discretion given record |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tire, Inc. v. Kepple, 970 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. 1998) (Rule 76a sealing procedures apply only to court records; district court must determine whether documents are court records before invoking Rule 76a)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standard for abuse of discretion review distinguishing factual and legal error)
- Roberts v. West, 123 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (trial court must determine whether documents are court records before holding a Rule 76a hearing)
- In re Coastal Bend Coll., 276 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (party may tender documents in camera to avoid converting them into court records prematurely)
- Masinga v. Whittington, 792 S.W.2d 940 (Tex. 1990) (protective order may issue upon showing of particular, specific, demonstrable injury)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (elements required to establish associational standing)
- NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (compelled disclosure of membership lists can chill freedom of association)
- Does I–XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiffs may proceed anonymously in certain circumstances to avoid retaliation)