Redaction vs. Sealing: Why Your Interlocutory Appeal Over Sensitive Data Will Be Dismissed
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Christopher, 14-24-00740-CV, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1, Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that an order denying a motion to redact “sensitive data” under Rule 21c is not an appealable interlocutory order. While Rule 76a(8) provides a specific jurisdictional grant for orders relating to the sealing of entire “court records,” that authority does not extend to the redaction of specific information within those records.
Relevance to Family Law
In Texas family law litigation, the file is frequently a repository of “sensitive data”—ranging from the Social Security numbers and birth dates of minor children to unmasked financial account numbers and tax returns. Practitioners often conflate the procedural mechanisms of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a (sealing) and Rule 21c (redaction). This opinion serves as a stark reminder that if a trial court refuses to redact sensitive data from a SAPCR order or a property division inventory, you do not have an automatic right to an interlocutory appeal. Mistaking a Rule 21c issue for a Rule 76a issue will result in a jurisdictional dismissal at the appellate level, potentially leaving highly sensitive client data exposed during the pendency of the underlying litigation.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Mengistu Taye sought to appeal an order from a Harris County civil court at law that denied his motion to “seal or redact” certain court records. Although the motion’s title utilized the term “seal,” the substance of the relief requested was the concealment of specific information characterized as “sensitive data” under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21c. The trial court denied the request, and Taye attempted to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction via an interlocutory appeal, presumably relying on the expedited appeal provisions usually reserved for sealing orders.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion to redact sensitive data under Rule 21c. Subordinate to this was the question of whether the label of the motion (“Motion to Seal”) or its underlying substance (seeking redaction) determines the availability of an interlocutory appeal under Rule 76a(8).
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which governs the sealing of “court records” and provides in subsection (8) that an order relating to sealing or unsealing is deemed a final, appealable judgment. The Court also applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21c, which defines “sensitive data” and mandates the redaction of specific characters (like SSNs or bank accounts) but does not contain a provision for interlocutory appeal. Finally, the Court relied on Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1999), to emphasize that appellate courts must look to the substance of a motion rather than its title to determine jurisdiction.
Application
The Court conducted a substance-over-form analysis of Taye’s motion. It noted a critical distinction between “sealing” and “redacting”: sealing applies to an entire document (a “court record”), whereas redaction involves concealing specific characters or digits within a document while leaving the remainder of the document visible. Because Taye’s motion sought only the concealment of specific data points rather than the closure of the entire document from public view, the Court categorized the request as one for redaction under Rule 21c.
The Court then observed that while the legislature and the Supreme Court of Texas have provided a specific gateway for interlocutory appeals of sealing orders under Rule 76a(8), no such gateway exists for Rule 21c redaction orders. Consequently, because the order was not a final judgment and was not authorized for interlocutory appeal by statute, the Court found it lacked the power to hear the case.
Holding
The Court held that the denial of a motion to redact sensitive data under Rule 21c is neither a final appealable order nor an authorized interlocutory appeal. Jurisdiction under Rule 76a(8) is strictly limited to orders regarding the sealing or unsealing of “court records” in their entirety.
Because the appellant failed to demonstrate any other legal basis for appellate jurisdiction following the Court’s ten-day notice of intent to dismiss, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case defines the boundaries of appellate strategy regarding privacy. If you are seeking to protect a client’s information, you must decide at the trial level if you are moving to redact (Rule 21c) or to seal (Rule 76a). If the trial court denies a Rule 21c motion to redact a child’s identity or a sensitive psychological evaluation, you cannot file a notice of appeal and expect the Court of Appeals to intervene. Your only likely remedy would be a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which requires meeting the “clear abuse of discretion” and “no adequate remedy by appeal” standards—a much higher burden than a standard interlocutory appeal.
Checklists
Determining the Appellate Path
- Identify the Scope: Does the relief sought involve the entire document (Sealing) or specific strings of text within the document (Redaction)?
- Review the Motion’s Substance: Ensure the motion specifically invokes Rule 76a procedures (including public notice) if you anticipate needing an interlocutory appeal.
- Assess the Jurisdictional Basis: If the order is based on Rule 21c, strike “Interlocutory Appeal” from your strategy and begin preparing for Mandamus.
Avoiding Jurisdictional Dismissal
- Labeling: Do not rely on the title “Motion to Seal” to preserve appellate rights if the relief you are actually asking for is redaction.
- Rule 76a Compliance: If you truly need the document sealed, comply with the strict notice and hearing requirements of Rule 76a to ensure any subsequent order is “final and appealable” under Rule 76a(8).
- Record Building: If a 21c motion is denied, ensure the “sensitive data” is clearly identified in the record to support a later argument that the trial court abused its discretion, even if that argument must wait for a final judgment or a mandamus proceeding.
Citation
Taye v. 3000 Sage Apartments, No. 14-24-00740-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In the context of a high-conflict divorce, “weaponized discovery” is common. An opposing party may intentionally file unredacted documents containing your client’s private financial data or the children’s sensitive information to create public pressure. If you move to redact that data under Rule 21c and the trial court—perhaps biased by the “presumption of openness”—denies the motion, you are effectively trapped.
Under Taye, you cannot stop the clock with an interlocutory appeal. This allows the opposing party to keep that sensitive data in the public record throughout the litigation. To counter this, savvy practitioners should consider framing their privacy motions as Rule 76a motions to seal specific “exhibits” or “attachments” in their entirety, rather than merely asking for redaction. By seeking to seal the entire “court record” (the specific document), you arguably pull the order into the jurisdictional envelope of Rule 76a(8), granting you the leverage of an immediate appeal and a potential stay.
~~77f40ce3-7335-498e-8c09-a732cfbcb4e8~~
Share this content:
