IN RE KOSMOS ENERGY SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 157th District Court
Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-71987
consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and
March 28, 2019, relator Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe
filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.
See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.);
see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition,
relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Tanya
Garrison, presiding judge of the 157th District Court of
Harris County, to vacate the part of her March 4, 2019 order
denying relator's motion to quash the deposition of
Andrew Inglis and requiring relator to produce Mr. Inglis for
obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial
court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential
Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex.
2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator has not shown
that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. We
therefore deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
Thompson Frost Chief Justice.
the court addresses the merits of relator Kosmos Energy Sao
Tome and Principe's petition for writ of mandamus and
denies relief, concluding that Kosmos failed to show that the
respondent trial judge clearly abused her discretion in
denying Kosmos's motion to quash the deposition of Andrew
Inglis and requiring Kosmos to produce him for deposition.
This court should not reach the merits because Kosmos has
failed to show that the record provided to this court is the
same record the trial court reviewed in making its decision.
after filing its petition for writ of mandamus and mandamus
record, Kosmos sought to withdraw the original mandamus
record and file an amended mandamus record. The proffered
amended record contained redacted documents. The original one
had no redactions. By filing an amended record rather than a
supplemental record, the amended record would take the place
of the original record and essentially make the original
record unavailable to the court and to the public. If,
instead, Kosmos had filed a supplemental record with the same
redactions, then this court could have decided the case on
the unredacted record because the record would have consisted
of both the redacted version and the unredacted version. By
amending rather than supplementing, Kosmos effectively
substituted the redacted record for the unredacted one and
made it impossible for this court to review what the trial
parties have not asserted that the trial court put the
redacted documents under seal or that the trial court
reviewed them under seal or that the documents were similarly
redacted in the trial court.
Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, entitled "Sealing Court
Records," provides that court records, as defined in the
rule, other than orders or opinions, are presumed to be open
to the general public and may be sealed only upon a showing
of each of the following:
(a) a specific, serious and substantial interest which
(1) this presumption of openness;
(2) any probable adverse effect that sealing will have upon
the general public ...