DENIED and Opinion Filed December 8, 2023

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01239-CV IN RE INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, INC. AND STEPHEN MCCORD, Relators Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-04058 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is relators’ December 7, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relators challenge the trial court’s orders dated November 20, 2023, granting real party in interest’s motion to compel and denying relators’ motion to quash and for protective order.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a record sufficient to show entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) required relators to file an appendix with their petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule 52.7(a)(1) required relators to file with their petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Although relators provided certified copies of the two November 20, 2023 orders at issue, none of the other documents relators included in their appendix or record are sworn or certified copies.

Thus, relators have failed to meet their burden to provide this Court with a record sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

Also before the Court is relators’ December 7, 2023 emergency motion for temporary stay of trial court’s discovery orders. The motion lacks the required certificate of conference, although real party in interest has already filed a response opposing the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). In any event, we deny the emergency motion as moot.

/Emily Miskel/ 231239f.p05 EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE

–2–