John Doe v. Juan J. Cruz ( 2022 )

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 4, 2022 No. 04-21-00582-CV John DOE, Appellant v. Juan J. CRUZ, Appellee From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021-CVF-001656-D4 Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding ORDER The reporter’s record and clerk’s record have been filed and appellant’s brief was due January 26, 2022. On January 21, 2022, appellant filed an “Unopposed Motion to Correct [the] Clerk’s Record” and an “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief.” In his motion to correct the clerk’s record, appellant raises the following deficiencies in the record: • The record is extremely difficult to navigate because (1) the page numbers listed for many documents in the Table of Contents do not correspond with the page numbers of the record—either as marked at the bottom of the pages or as identified in the PDF viewer; and (2) the record is not properly bookmarked. See CR7-8 (Table of Contents incorrectly listing documents beginning at PDF page 484 as starting on page 1 of the record). • Exhibits to key pleadings (e.g., Cruz’s counterclaim and his response to Doe’s TCPA motion to dismiss) are out of order. See CR138-39, 142-55, 236-471. • Several exhibits, including those attached to Cruz’s response to Doe’s motion to dismiss (CR395), appear before the pleading to which they correspond. See CR138-39, 236-394, 637-664. • The opening four documents in the record (which were filed in January 2022 and December 2021) are out of chronological order from the remainder of the record (which should otherwise begin with the original petition filed in August of 2021). See CR9-95. • Rather than identify specific documents, the table of contents contains repeated references to “DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TCPA MOTION TO DISMISS. EXHIBITS A-S ATTACHED.” See CR5-7. Similar errors appear in the table of contents in connection with Doe’s reply in support of his TCPA motion to dismiss. See CR7. • The Clerk’s Record is incorrectly captioned with the “Honorable O.J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding,” when in fact the Honorable Susan Reed, sitting by assignment, presided over the entirety of this matter. See CR, 110. The district clerk filed a record that did not improperly omit any documents. However, we GRANT appellant’s “Unopposed Motion to Correct [the] Clerk’s Record” and ORDER the district clerk to file an amended clerk’s record, no later than February 22, 2022, that (1) corrects the above deficiencies, (2) arranges the documents in ascending chronological order, by date of filing or occurrence, (3) labels and certifies the clerk’s record as required by the rules, and (4) includes after the front cover of the clerk’s record a detailed table of contents identifying each document in the entire record (including sealed documents), the date each document was filed, and except for sealed documents, the page on which each document begins. If the district clerk files the record in electronic form, the district clerk is further ORDERED to use bookmarks to link each document description in the table of contents. Appellant’s “Unopposed “Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief” is GRANTED, and appellant is ORDERED to file his brief no later than twenty (20) days from the date the amended clerk’s record is filed. It is so ORDERED on February 4, 2022. PER CURIAM ATTESTED TO: _________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT