Combs v. Texas Civil Rights Project
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10904
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed a Rule 202 petition to take pre-suit depositions of Comptroller Susan Combs and a Comptroller’s Office representative to investigate a data-security incident involving 3.5 million Texans’ personal information.
- In 2010, multiple state agencies transferred electronic records to the Comptroller’s Office; the data were left on a public server and exposed until March 31, 2011, when the breach was remedied.
- The incident centered on alleged improper handling of personal data and calls for inquiry into what happened, who was responsible, and what measures should be taken to prevent recurrence.
- The State Defendants asserted sovereign immunity and moved for dismissal; the trial court denied the plea to jurisdiction and granted the Rule 202 petition, allowing depositions after weighing benefits against burdens.
- The State Defendants appeal contending sovereign immunity barred Rule 202 proceedings, and that the petition could not support ultra vires or prospective relief; the court ultimately vacated and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does sovereign immunity bar Rule 202 petition as an independent suit? | Plaintiffs contend Rule 202 is a pre-suit discovery tool, not a separate suit. | State Defendants contend Rule 202 proceedings are suits barred by immunity. | Rule 202 petitions are not wholesale suits and are not per se barred by immunity. |
| Can Rule 202 pleadings demonstrate jurisdiction to investigate ultra vires or future relief? | Plaintiffs allege ultra vires potential against Combs and future measures to prevent recurrence. | Defendants argue no viable ultra vires or prospective relief potential under current pleadings. | Plaintiffs’ pleadings did not affirmatively show prospective relief not barred by immunity; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Did the petition sufficiently establish jurisdiction or allow amendment to cure defects? | Petition should be allowed to amend to cure jurisdictional defects. | Plea to jurisdiction should be sustained; defects incurable. | Trial court lacked jurisdiction and should not permit cure; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (sovereign immunity limits and jurisdictional review in waivers)
- City of Dallas v. Dallas Black Fire Fighters Ass’n, 353 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (Rule 202 petitions not automatic waivers of immunity; context matters)
- Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 307 S.W.3d 505 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (ultra vires claims require prospective relief; jurisdictional scope)
- In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (Rule 202 limits on discovery; cannot obtain what would be denied in anticipated suit)
- City of Houston v. U.S. Filter Wastewater Grp., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 242 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 2006) (limits on Rule 202 depositions when seeking to investigate barred claims)