eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2006-01

in Re Jeffery Lynn Poteete ( 2006 )


Menu:

  •  

     

     

     

     

     

                                          COURT OF APPEALS

                                           SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                       FORT WORTH

     

     

                                            NO. 2-05-433-CV  

     

     

    IN RE JEFFERY LYNN POTEETE

     

                                                                                                           

                                                       

     

                                                  ------------

     

                FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

     

                                                  ------------

     

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

     

                                                  ------------

    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 Afor use in an anticipated suit@ or Ato investigate a potential claim or suit.@[2]  A person obtains such a deposition by filing a petition in a proper court.[3]  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.[4]  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.[5]  In that instance, the order cannot be appealed until a final judgment is rendered in the pending or contemplated suit.[6]

    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.[7]  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.[8]  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

     

    PER CURIAM

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

    DELIVERED: January 26, 2006

     


    [1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

    [2]Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1.

    [3]Id.; Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.2(b); Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex. App.CWaco 2005, no pet.).

    [4]IFS Security Group, Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins., 175 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Tex. App.CDallas 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.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (both applying predecessor to rule 202).

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

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

    [7]Poteete=s petition states that he Aseeks to depose Edwin J. Youngblood to investigate a claim by petitioner . . . in proceedings to >Legal Malpractice.=@

    [8]Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747.