in Re Maria Cristina Newall De Kallop ( 2020 )

Order filed February 11, 2020. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-20-00033-CV ____________ IN RE MARIA CRISTINA NEWALL DE KALLOP, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 475,050 ORDER On January 15, 2020, relator Maria Cristina Newall de Kallop filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the Honorable James Horwitz, presiding judge of the Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, to vacate his Order Granting Motion to Compel (the “Compel Order”) and Order Denying Motion to Quash and Motion for Protection, signed on January 6, 2020. Relator also has filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to stay the Compel Order pending our decision on the petition. It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order: We ORDER the Compel Order stayed until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. Relator also has filed a motion for leave to file two items (yearbook photos) for in camera review by our court, which allegedly were reviewed in camera by the Probate Court. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a provides: “Court records may not be removed from court files except as permitted by statute or rule.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(1). “For purposes of this rule, court records means:(a) all documents of any nature filed in connection with any matter before any civil court, except: (1) documents filed with a court in camera, solely for the purpose of obtaining a ruling on the discoverability of such documents; (2) documents in court files to which access is otherwise restricted by law; (3) documents filed in an action originally arising under the Family Code.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(2). The record does not show that Rule 76a has been satisfied with respect to the items at issue or that any of the rule’s exceptions apply to those items. We DENY relator’s motion for leave to file these items for in camera review. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Bourliot. 2