N.K. Anand v. Dr. Lale Yurttas

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00124-CV

MICHAEL V. PISHKO, Appellant

v.

DR. LALE YURTTAS, Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-003350-CV-361

No. 10-11-00125-CV

N.K. ANAND, Appellant

v.

DR. LALE YURTTAS, Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-003351-CV-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant in each of these two cases has appealed the respective trial court’s order allowing Appellee to take their presuit depositions pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 202. Appellants also sought mandamus relief from the trial court orders in separate but practically identical original proceedings, and today we have denied mandamus relief in the original proceedings.

“Presuit deposition orders are appealable only if sought from someone against whom suit is not anticipated.” In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008). That is, if the order allows the presuit deposition of a person against whom suit is contemplated, the order is interlocutory and there is no appellate jurisdiction. Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747-48 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.).

In the trial courts and in the original proceedings, Appellee has taken the position that she is investigating potential claims against not only her employer, but also against the Appellants. Because Appellee contemplates or anticipates a possible suit against Appellants, the trial courts’ orders are interlocutory, and these appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 20, 2011 [CV06] Pishko v. Yurttas Page 2