Tandem Energy Corporation, Tortuga Operating Company, Sierra Mineral Development, L.C., Tim G. Culp, Peter L. Turbett, John Hine, John Hine, John Eads, Edwin C. Broun, and Robert Fabris v. The State of Texas, by and through The Texas Dept. of Transporation and The Harris County Flood Control District--Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed October 16, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00815-CV

____________

TANDEM ENERGY CORPORATION, TORTUGA OPERATING COMPANY, SIERRA MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, L.C., TIM G. CULP, PETER L. TURBETT, JOHN HINE, JOHN EADS, EDWIN C. BROUN, and ROBERT FABRIS, Appellants

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03-24769

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed June 25, 2003, which granted the appellees= first amended petition to take videotaped depositions with a request for production before suit. Concurrently with filing this appeal, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging the same order. Finding that we have no jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.

The trial court=s order granted appellees= request to take depositions before suit as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 202. This order is not appealable. See Office Employees Int=l Union v. Southwestern Drug Corp., 391 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. 1965)(addressing an order under predecessor rule to Rule 202). In the absence of a special statute making an interlocutory order appealable, an appealable judgment must dispose of all issues and parties. TexacadianEnergy, Inc. v. Lone Star Energy Storage, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 369, 372 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1992, writ denied). A proceeding to perpetuate testimony is not an independent suit, but is ancillary to an anticipated suit. Office Employees, 391 S.W.2d at 406. Rule 202 is silent regarding whether the order granting relief is appealable and no other statute or rule provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order of this nature. See id. at 407. Absent any authority providing for appeal of an order under Rule 202, we have no jurisdiction over this attempted appeal.

Furthermore, this court issued an opinion on August 29, 2003, in the mandamus proceeding regarding the same trial court order. In the opinion, this court denied relief and found that appellants did not establish an abuse of discretion. Having ruled on the merits of the petition for writ of mandamus concerning the June 25, 2003, order, the appeal from the same order is moot.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 16, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Fowler.