In re Ola Johnson Harris Appeal from 412th District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Memorandum Opinion Dated January 28, 2016 is Withdrawn, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied as Moot, and Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing filed March 22, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00962-CV IN RE OLA JOHNSON HARRIS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 78037-CV MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING Relator Ola Johnson Harris filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable W. Edwin Denman, presiding judge of the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, to vacate his November 2, 2015 order granting real party in interest’s motion to compel cell phone provider records.1 The trial court has ruled on relator’s objections to discovery, but has not ruled on what documents, if any, will be ordered produced to real party in interest. We conclude that relator’s request for relief is premature. See In re Martinez, No. 08-03-00361-CV, No. 2003 WL 22023485, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 28, 2003, orig. proceeding [pet. dism’d]) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief on order compelling production where trial court had not conducted an in camera review and had not made any further orders with respect to those documents). Relator has not shown that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan. 1 We issued our original memorandum opinion on January 28, 2016. Relator filed a motion for rehearing. We overrule the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, issue this memorandum opinion on rehearing, and deny the motion for rehearing en banc as moot. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.