A county court judge ordered an in‑camera review of redacted Quail Village Townhouse Association documents and granted the association's motion to quash a deposition during a hearing in the estate of James T. Young v. Quail Village Townhouse Association.

The judge told attorneys the court would "make this happen today" and asked counsel to send the contested documents to the judge's coordinator for printing and immediate review. The court also directed follow‑up disclosures and said some nonredacted material would be turned over within 24 hours.

Why it matters: The rulings affect what evidence each side may use at trial, whether redactions are upheld as privileged, and whether depositions taken now can be used at trial. Attorneys clashed over withheld invoices and board minutes that plaintiff's counsel says show interior damage to the plaintiff's unit.

Plaintiff's attorney Olady Banks urged the court to review specific redactions and to compel production of a vendor estimate he identified as "4255." Banks said the email chain and attachments show the association had the estimate and that the estimate was material to damages within the unit. "We're asking the court to review what defendant has redacted," Banks told the judge.

Defense attorney Shannon Lang said she had asked the HOA management company to search again and represented that the association had "searched high and low, and every document touching on this property has been located." Lang told the court she would produce anything the management company located and provide a privilege log for redactions if necessary.

The court heard counsel identify documents and email chains dated June 22, 2023, and April–May 2023 that include vendor estimates labeled with numbers such as 4255, 4257 and 4265 and excerpts of a report from "GRG Construction." Banks said one of the estimates listed in the chain described interior scope of work; Lang responded that the estimates produced related to exterior repairs such as drains or patios.

On the deposition notice, the association moved to quash a notice for Issa Ocampo, a representative of Houston HOA Management LLC, on the ground that Ocampo is not a local employee and could not be compelled to appear where noticed. The court granted the motion to quash and advised plaintiff's counsel that subpoenas remain an option if the witness can be compelled through proper process. Lang told the court she did not represent the management company's employees and could not force attendance from outside the jurisdiction.

The judge ordered the parties to provide the disputed documents to the judge's coordinator for in‑camera review, instructed defense counsel to produce an unredacted copy of at least one board workshop agenda, and said that disclosures would be made "within 24 hours." The court also said it would issue a joint order to expedite the transcript reading period for depositions so either side could use recently circulated transcripts at trial if appropriate.

Discussion versus action: The hearing included argument (Banks's motion to compel and Lang's explanations of redactions and searches) and formal rulings (the court's in‑camera review directive, grant of the motion to quash, and the disclosure timing). The court did not rule at the hearing that every redaction was privileged; it instead ordered review and limited immediate disclosures.

The hearing record shows dispute over whether redactions reflect attorney client communications or substantive notes from board members. Lang said some marginalia were comments about a separate agenda item and offered to provide a privilege log if Banks requested one. Banks requested that the court examine at least one redacted portion in camera to determine whether the privilege claim was proper.

What comes next: The judge will review the documents in camera after they are submitted by counsel and will reconvene the parties as necessary. The court's immediate order to disclose certain unredacted material and to produce requested documents promptly may alter both sides's trial preparation.

Ending: Counsel were told to email the coordinator with the identified documents and to expect an order addressing depositions and disclosure deadlines.