Timothy J. O'Brien v. Richard Alderman, Individually and in His Official Capacity

Opinion

Opinion issued April 14, 2011.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-01120-CV

———————————

Timothy J. O'Brien, individually and on behalf of YUna O'Brien, a minor, Appellants

V.

Richard Alderman, John Antel, Trudy BarreTt,

Nancy Beck Young, Robert Buzzanco, Carl Carlucci, James Conyers, Dona Cornell, Steven Craig, Donald J. Foss, Daniel L. Gardner, Jim Granato, Gerald Horne, Juany Jiminez, Renu Khator, Saleha Khumawala,

Keith Kowalka, Maria Martinez, William Munson,

Gloria Ned, Nancy Nguyen, Joseph Pratt, Raul Ramos, Jose Rangel, Harrell Rodgers Jr., John Rudley, uadalupe San Miguel, and Jerald Strickland, Appellees

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2009-20328

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellees Richard Alderman, John Antel, Trudy Barrett, Nancy Beck Young, Robert Buzzanco, Carl Carlucci, James Conyers, Dona Cornell, Steven Craig, Donald J. Foss, Daniel L. Gardner, Jim Granato, Gerald Horne, Juany Jiminez, Renu Khator, Saleha Khumawala, Keith Kowalka, Maria Martinez, William Munson, Gloria Ned, Nancy Nguyen, Joseph Pratt, Raul Ramos, Jose Rangel, Harrell Rodgers Jr., John Rudley, Guadalupe San Miguel, and Jerald Strickland (the State appellees) have moved to dismiss the appeal.  The Court notified appellant Timothy O’Brien of the motion and ordered any response to be filed by February 23, 2011.  O’Brien has not responded to the motion. 

The State appellees point out that O’Brien has explicitly appealed only the trial court’s order denying his motion to quash his deposition and granting the State’s motion to compel.  They contend that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of this interlocutory order and therefore must dismiss. 

With the exception of certain statutory interlocutory jurisdiction not at issue here, this Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (West 2008) (granting jurisdiction over certain interlocutory orders).  The trial court’s order is an interlocutory discovery order, not a final judgment.  The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.  

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  All other pending motions in this appeal are overruled as moot.  The Clerk is directed to issue mandate within 10 days of the date of this appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 18.1.

                                      PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Bland.