OPINION
Relator, K.P., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a notice of appeal complaining that the trial court vacated an order that it previously entered granting K.P.’s petition for expunction. K.P. complains the trial court vacated its prior order in deference to a newspaper’s pending request for the records under the Texas Public Information Act, and that it then released the records it had gathered concerning K.P.’s arrest to the newspaper, effectively allowing their return to the public sphere. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.221 (West 2004) (Application for Public Information; Production of Public Information). According to K.P., the trial court by withdrawing the order and releasing the records at issue has prevented K.P. from protecting his right in an appeal to demonstrate that the newspaper was without standing to participate in the proceedings that concerned the expunction. To prevent the immediate release of K.P.’s records pending our resolution of the issues K.P. has raised in this Court, K.P. also filed an emergency motion to stay the release of the records at issue, which we granted, to preserve K.P.’s issues for review.
To maintain the status quo pending our resolution of K.P.’s current appeal and his request that we issue a writ of mandamus, we also ordered that the records at issue were not to be disclosed pending further order. After considering the issues that the parties to this proceeding have raised, we conclude the trial court’s order vacating the order of expunction is interlocutory because the trial court’s proceedings have not yet concluded; we hold that the order vacating the trial court’s order of expunction is not appealable at this time. However, to preserve K.P.’s right to appeal and to prevent the loss of K.P.’s rights pending appeal, we further conclude that K.P. was entitled to have the trial court grant his request to prevent the release of the records at issue pending the trial court’s entry of a final judgment. Under the unique circumstances that are present here, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by granting K.P.’s request for expunction and then withdrawing that decision and releasing K.P.’s records without protecting the records at issue from becoming public pending the trial court’s entry of a final judgment. Therefore, we conditionally grant K.P.’s mandamus in part, and direct the trial court to enter an order protecting the records at issue from disclosure or inspection pending the trial court’s entry of a final and appealable order.
