 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IFS Security Group10/31/2005
d. at 902-03. When Jacintoport failed to comply with the trial court's order, the trial court imposed sanctions. Id. at 902. Jacintoport appealed the trial court's order imposing sanctions. Id. The court determined that the bill of discovery order was not final and appealable because the express language of the petition in the nature of a bill of discovery contemplated a lawsuit against Jacintoport, and a lawsuit was pending when the sanctions were ordered. Id. at 903.
Our review of Ross and Rawlins leads us to conclude they are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In those cases, there was no employer and employee relationship between the party from whom the discovery was sought and the party against whom the litigation was anticipated. Instead, the parties from whom the discovery was sought were third parties, apparently independent of the proposed defendant or defendants, who were believed to possess facts relevant to the anticipated lawsuits. Additionally, Jacintoport is not factually similar to the case before us because Jacintoport was an anticipated defendant, a lawsuit was actually filed against it, and the order appealed was the trial court's order imposing sanctions, not the order to appear for the deposition.
In Vega, Mr. and Mrs. Vega were served with subpoenas to take their depositions in a pending case alleging tortious interference with a contract filed by their former attorney against three different persons. Vega, 31 S.W.3d at 377-78. Mr. and Mrs. Vega filed a motion to quash the depositions, which the trial court denied. Id. at 378. The Vegas appealed. The court of appeals determined the trial court's order denying the Vegas' motion to quash the depositions was a final, appealable order because they were not parties to the pending lawsuit and no lawsuit against the Vegas was contemplated. See id. at 378, 380-81. The court of appeals also determined the trial court could require the Vegas to attend the depositions. See id.
In Vega, the court of appeals determined an order denying a motion to quash the discovery of the third-party deponents against whom no lawsuit was anticipated was final and appealable. However, Vega is distinguishable from the facts of this case because it involves a discovery dispute in a pending lawsuit. Also, in Vega, there was no employer and employee relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Vega and their former attorney.
In this case, we are presented with a record that discloses the witness is the employee of the anticipated defendant. No other facts are described in the record which could reflect any other status of the witness. Moreover, not only does Ameritex seek to depose an employee of American Equity, it requests that the witness be subpoenaed to produce documents clearly described as American Equity's documents. There is no contention that these documents are anything other than documents directly pertinent to the potential claims of Ameritex against American Equity. Finally, the style of the petition seeking the presuit deposition is clearly against American Equity, not the employee. We observe that a corporation acts only through its human agents or employees. See Nat'l Med. Enters., Inc. v. Godbey, 924 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex. 1996). Further, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery contemplate that when a corporation appears for its deposition, it is to designate representatives with knowledge of the matters about which inquiry will be made. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2(b)(1), 200.1(b). Accordingly, because the substance of Ameritex's rule 202 petition is to discover the facts from American Equity about its handling of the insurance claim, it follows that, based on the record before us, the person with that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|