In re The State of Texas — Order

Motion GRANTED AND Order filed October 21, 2026.
In The
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 15-26-00113-CV
____________
IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
457th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 25-01-00561
ORDER
The relator State of Texas filed a petition for writ of mandamus on May 18,
2026, seeking to vacate the trial court’s May 4, 2026 “Order Denying Plaintiff’s
Motion to Quash and Order Compelling Discovery” (“May 4th Order”) and quash
the April 1, 2026 “Notice of Deposition” (“Notice”). See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Since
then, the trial court ordered the relator to comply with the May 4th Order in its
September 30, 2026 “Order on Defendants’ Motion Regarding State’s Failure to

Comply with Discovery Order Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2(b)” (“September
30th Order”).
The relator subsequently filed an emergency motion on October 7, 2026,
asking this Court to stay all pre-trial proceedings and deadlines related to the
Notice, the May 4th Order, and the September 30th Order, pending a decision on
the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. This Court issued an
administrative stay on October 9, 2026, to permit it sufficient time to review the
relator’s emergency motion. On the same day, the real parties in interest filed a
response to the emergency motion. That response raised, in part, that summary
judgment briefs are due November 9, 2026, and indicated that the deposition at
issue is necessary to mount their defense at summary judgment.
This Court, either by a party’s motion or on its own initiative, “may without
notice grant any just relief pending the [C]ourt’s action on the petition.” Tex. R.
App. P. 52.10(b). It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that the
relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that the relator will be
prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted.1 We therefore GRANT
relator’s motion and issue the following order:
We ORDER the pre-trial proceedings and deadlines related to the Notice
and the trial court’s May 4th and September 30th Orders, as well as, on our own
1 The real parties in interest argue in its response that the relator failed to justify a temporary stay
in accordance with the factors outlined in In re State, 711 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. 2024), including the
likely merits of the parties’ positions. We recently stated in another order granting a request for
temporary relief in an original proceeding that the In re State factors apply when the requested
relief “seek[s] to enjoin or compel action by a party.” In re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 15-26-
00163-CV (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Oct. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding) (order) (per curiam). This
differs from temporary relief that seeks “a stay of the trial court proceedings.” Id. Here, the
relator is not seeking to enjoin or compel action by a party. Consequently, we have not applied
the In re State factor evaluating the merits of the parties’ positions in deciding the relator’s
request for temporary relief.

initiative, the parties’ briefing deadlines for summary judgment, in trial court cause
number 25-01-00561, The State of Texas v. Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate
Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance
Company, Arity, LLC, and Arity Services, LLC, STAYED until a final decision by
this Court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this
Court.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.