From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Poteete

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Jan 26, 2006
No. 02-05-433-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2006)

Summary

construing rule 202 and dismissing appeal

Summary of this case from IN RE BED BATH

Opinion

No. 02-05-433-CV

Delivered: January 26, 2006.

Appeal from the 96th District Court of Tarrant County.

Panel D: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Jeffrey Lynn Poteete is attempting to appeal the trial court's order dismissing his petition for discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Rule 202.1 permits the taking of a deposition to perpetuate a person's testimony "for use in an anticipated suit" or "to investigate a potential claim or suit." A person obtains such a deposition by filing a petition in a proper court. The court's ruling on the petition is a final, appealable order if the petition seeks discovery from a third party against whom a suit is not contemplated. Conversely, the ruling is interlocutory if discovery is sought from a person against whom there is a suit pending or against whom a suit is specifically contemplated. In that instance, the order cannot be appealed until a final judgment is rendered in the pending or contemplated suit.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.1.

Id.; TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.2(b); Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.).

IFS Security Group, Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins., 175 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747; see Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Labs., Inc., 810 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex. 1991); Jacintoport Corp. v. Almanza, 987 S.W.2d 901, 902 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (both applying predecessor to rule 202).

IFS Security Group, 175 S.W.3d at 563; Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747; Jacintoport Corp., 987 S.W.2d at 902.

IFS Security Group, 175 S.W.3d at 563; Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747.

In this case, Poteete's petition indicates that he is seeking discovery from his former lawyer against whom he is contemplating filing a legal malpractice lawsuit. Therefore, the trial court's order denying the discovery is interlocutory and cannot be appealed until a final judgment is rendered in the contemplated suit; thus, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Poteete's petition states that he "seeks to depose Edwin J. Youngblood to investigate a claim by petitioner . . . in proceedings to `Legal Malpractice.'"


Summaries of

In re Poteete

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Jan 26, 2006
No. 02-05-433-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2006)

construing rule 202 and dismissing appeal

Summary of this case from IN RE BED BATH

construing rule 202 and dismissing appeal

Summary of this case from DOE(S) v. Haddock
Case details for

In re Poteete

Case Details

Full title:IN RE JEFFERY LYNN POTEETE

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

Date published: Jan 26, 2006

Citations

No. 02-05-433-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

IN RE BED BATH

See, e.g., In re Poteete, No. 02-05-00433-CV, 2006 WL 176965, at *1 (Tex.App.(Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2006, no…

DOE(S) v. Haddock

See, e.g., In re Poteete, No. 02-05-00433-CV, 2006 WL 176965, at *1 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2006, no…