Post-Hearing Expert Exclusion Motions Must Be Timely Presented and Cannot Collaterally Attack Temporary Injunction Orders
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Melissa Davis Andrews
In Safelease Insurance Services LLC v. Storable, Inc., the Business Court's Third Division addressed a post-temporary-injunction motion combining objections to the injunction order, a request to rule on expert exclusion, and a motion to reconsider. The case arises from a dispute over SafeLease's access to Storable's facility-management software platforms used by mutual self-storage facility customers, with SafeLease alleging Storable blocked access to benefit its competing insurance products while Storable asserted it was enforcing terms of use and mitigating security threats.
Court Staff Summary
Denying a post-temporary-injunction hearing motion to exclude expert testimony given at the hearing. Denying an objection to a temporary-injunction order arguing that the order decides the ultimate merits of the case rather than a probable right to recover.
Background: Insurance Access and FMS Platform Dispute
SafeLease Insurance Services LLC provides insurance for self-storage facilities and accesses facility-management software (FMS) platforms—including storEDGE, SiteLink, and Easy Storage Solutions—licensed by Storable, Inc. to SafeLease's mutual customers. In late 2024, Storable began blocking SafeLease's authorized-user access to storEDGE. SafeLease alleged Storable sought to drive it from the self-storage insurance market to benefit Storable's competing insurance products; Storable asserted it was enforcing terms of use and mitigating security threats.
Procedural History
SafeLease sued Storable in the 345th District Court in Travis County on December 30, 2024. The District Court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) compelling Storable to restore SafeLease's authorized-user access to storEDGE and prohibiting Storable from removing or restricting SafeLease's access to the FMS platforms. After extending the TRO, the District Court denied the request for a temporary injunction. A week later, SafeLease amended its petition to include new tortious interference claims and allegations about Storable's actions after the temporary injunction was denied, then removed the action to the Business Court.
In the Business Court, SafeLease filed a new application for a TRO and temporary injunction. The Court denied the TRO on January 30, 2025, and set a temporary injunction hearing. The hearing was conducted on February 11, 13, and 14, with closing arguments on February 18. The Court issued a temporary injunction order on February 19, granting SafeLease limited injunctive relief.
The Post-Injunction Motion
Two days after the temporary injunction order issued, on February 21, Storable filed a document titled "Objections To Temporary Injunction Order, Motion to Rule On Exclusion Of Opinions Of Dr. Williams, And Motion to Reconsider Based On Objections And Exclusion." The motion combined three requests for relief and was set for written submission. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
Note: The source opinion provided ends at this procedural juncture. The Court's substantive analysis of the motion's merits, including any rulings on expert testimony exclusion, standards for reconsideration, or the specific grounds for the partial grant and denial, are not included in the excerpt provided to TBCblog.