Petitioner in this post-conviction case appeals an order of the post-conviction court dated June 21, 2016, denying his motion for a protective order. See Brumwell v. Premo, 355 Or 543, 326 P3d 1177 (2014); Longo v. Premo, 355 Or 525, 326 P3d 1152 (2014) (analyzing OEC 504(4)(c)’s breach of duty exception to attorney-client privilege and concluding that a protective order may be necessary in a post-conviction case to prevent disclosure of privileged information to third parties). Petitioner contends, in part, that the post-conviction court had no jurisdiction to enter an order denying the motion because an appeal from a previous order denying the same request was pending at the time the trial court ruled.1 Accordingly, petitioner asserts, jurisdiction “was vested in this court, not the trial court.” The superintendent, for his part, agrees with petitioner that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to issue the June 2016 order underlying this appeal: “The post-conviction court had decided the same issue twice before; because those prior orders were subject to pending appeals, the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction over the cause, and had no authority to revisit its prior rulings.” We agree with the parties that because, at the time the order was entered, an appeal was pending regarding an earlier order of the post-conviction court denying petitioner’s request for a protective order, the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to enter the June 21, 2016, order.2 See ORS 19.270(1)3; Koller v. Schmaing, 254 *309Or App 115, 130, 296 P3d 529 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 445 (2013) (“[U]pon the filing of a notice of appeal, jurisdiction of the cause rests in the appellate court, with the trial court retaining limited jurisdiction with respect to precisely identified matters.”)- Accordingly, the June 21, 2016, order denying petitioner’s request for a protective order must be vacated.

Vacated.