What did the court decide?

The appellate court denied Kevin Henry's request for a writ of mandamus and left the trial court's order compelling discovery in place.

Who is affected by this decision?

Kevin Henry (the relator) and the parties in the underlying civil case (Derrick Dees v. Henry et al.) are directly affected because the trial court's discovery order remains enforceable.

What happens next in the underlying case?

The parties must comply with the trial court's discovery order unless they obtain other relief from the trial court or a different appellate ruling.

Can this decision be appealed?

This memorandum denies mandamus relief; the relator could consider alternative appellate options, but the opinion itself does not grant further relief and does not discuss additional appeals.

In Re Kevin Henry v. the State of Texas

Docket 01-26-00145-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDenied

Filed: Apr 9, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 01-26-00145-CV

Original proceeding seeking writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order granting a motion to compel discovery in a pending civil case.

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals (First District) denied Kevin Henry's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order that granted an opponent's motion to compel discovery in a pending civil case (Derrick Dees v. Kevin Henry et al.). The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any outstanding motions as moot. The opinion is a short per curiam memorandum without extended factual or legal discussion, and it leaves the trial court's order intact.

Issue Decided

Whether this court should grant mandamus relief to overturn a trial court's order compelling discovery.

Court's Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that mandamus relief was not appropriate under the circumstances presented, and therefore declined to disturb the trial court's discovery order. The memorandum opinion is brief and issues the denial without extended explanation, indicating the court found no basis to exercise extraordinary relief. Because mandamus was denied, the trial court's order remains in effect.

Parties

Relator: Kevin Henry
Plaintiff: Derrick Dees
Defendant: Kevin Henry
Defendant: Peter Lefevre
Defendant: Brittney Darbonne
Judge: Greg Hill

Key Dates

Opinion issued: 2026-04-09

What You Should Do Next

1
Comply with the discovery order
Unless the trial court stays its order or another appellate court grants relief, the parties should comply with the compelled discovery to avoid sanctions.
2
Consult appellate counsel
Relator should consult an appellate attorney to evaluate whether other remedies or further appellate filings are appropriate given the denial of mandamus.
3
Monitor and dismiss moot motions
Counsel should note that any pending motions before the appellate court were dismissed as moot and ensure no further procedural housekeeping is required.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court denied Kevin Henry's request for a writ of mandamus and left the trial court's order compelling discovery in place.
Who is affected by this decision?: Kevin Henry (the relator) and the parties in the underlying civil case (Derrick Dees v. Henry et al.) are directly affected because the trial court's discovery order remains enforceable.
What happens next in the underlying case?: The parties must comply with the trial court's discovery order unless they obtain other relief from the trial court or a different appellate ruling.
Can this decision be appealed?: This memorandum denies mandamus relief; the relator could consider alternative appellate options, but the opinion itself does not grant further relief and does not discuss additional appeals.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Opinion issued April 9, 2026




                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                               NO. 01-26-00145-CV
                            ———————————
                        IN RE KEVIN HENRY, Relator


            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Kevin Henry has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining

of the trial court’s order granting a motion to compel.1 We deny mandamus relief.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.

1
      The underlying case is Derrick Dees v. Kevin Henry, Peter Lefevre, and Brittney
      Darbonne, cause number 136646-CV, pending in the 239th District Court of
      Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable Greg Hill presiding.