Matthew L. Webb v. HEB LP. Appeal from 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00091-CV Matthew L. WEBB, Appellant v. HEB LP, Appellee From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CI00522 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 29, 2020 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISIDICTION This is an attempted appeal from an order denying a petition for a pre-suit deposition. Under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a person may file a petition to obtain an order authorizing the taking of a pre-suit deposition to perpetuate testimony “for use in an anticipated suit” or “to investigate a potential claim or suit.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.1; 202.2. When a Rule 202 petition seeks to depose an anticipated defendant, the trial court’s order on the petition is interlocutory and not appealable until a final judgment is rendered in the contemplated suit. In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“[W]hen sought from an 04-20-00091-CV anticipated defendant” a pre-suit deposition order is “considered ancillary to the subsequent suit, and thus neither final nor appealable.”); Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex. App.— Waco 2005, no pet.) (recognizing that a ruling on a Rule 202 petition is interlocutory and not immediately appealable when it seeks to depose a person against whom suit is contemplated). “Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction.” Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007). No statute authorizes an immediate appeal from an order denying a deposition to perpetuate the testimony of an anticipated defendant. Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747. Here, the Rule 202 petition shows that appellant was contemplating a suit alleging certain acts or omissions by an HEB LP pharmacy employee and that appellant was seeking to depose this pharmacy employee. We issued an order warning appellant it appeared we had no jurisdiction over this appeal. We explained that because appellant’s Rule 202 petition sought to depose an anticipated defendant, the trial court’s order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable. Appellant responded to our order, but his response does not show that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747-48 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from an order denying a deposition to perpetuate the testimony of an anticipated defendant). PER CURIAM -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
