Glassdoor, Inc., Doe 1, and Doe 2 v. Andra Group, Lp, 575 S.W.3d 523

Background

Andra Group filed a verified Rule 202 petition in August 2015 to depose Glassdoor to learn the identities of anonymous reviewers who posted negative reviews between July 2014 and June 2015, seeking to investigate potential defamation and business disparagement claims.
Glassdoor opposed, asserting First Amendment concerns, and moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA); two anonymous reviewers joined the motion.
The trial court denied the TCPA motion and granted a limited Rule 202 deposition as to two specific posts (July 8, 2014 and October 22, 2014), restricting scope to particular asserted factual statements; Glassdoor and the Does appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed, assuming without deciding the TCPA’s applicability to Rule 202 and reasoning Andra had shown sufficient benefit to warrant limited pre-suit discovery; it treated the Rule 202 showing as the operative “claim.”
The Texas Supreme Court considered (1) whether the TCPA applies to Rule 202 proceedings and whether dismissal/fees were warranted, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the limited Rule 202 relief, but first addressed mootness based on statutes of limitations.
The Court held the single-publication rule applies to internet posts, concluded Andra discovered the reviews before filing its petition (and thus limitations ran), and therefore the Rule 202 petition and TCPA motion were moot; it vacated lower judgments and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Andra)	Defendant's Argument (Glassdoor/Does)	Held
Whether TCPA dismissal procedures apply to a Rule 202 pre-suit deposition	TCPA does not apply to Rule 202 proceedings; even if it does, Andra met evidentiary burden	The Rule 202 petition is a "legal action" under TCPA and must be dismissed unless Andra establishes prima facie claims	Not reached on merits because proceeding was moot due to statute of limitations; TCPA motion also moot because movants did not prevail before mootness
Whether pre-suit discovery under Rule 202 was properly granted (abuse of discretion)	Andra argued likely benefit of discovery outweighed burden and sought identities to investigate claims	Glassdoor argued burden, First Amendment, and that statements are nonactionable opinion; also asserted limitations issues	Court did not rule on abuse-of-discretion due to mootness of Rule 202 petition; lower courts’ rulings vacated and case dismissed
Whether internet posts on Glassdoor trigger new accrual (republication) each time accessed or remain a single publication	Glassdoor republishes on each user access (restricted-access theory), so limitations should run anew; anonymity delays accrual	Glassdoor argued single-publication rule applies to internet posts; anonymity does not defer accrual once plaintiff discovered the statements	Held: Single-publication rule applies to publicly accessible internet content; posts were not confidential or restricted here; limitations ran from discovery, so claims are time-barred
Whether anonymity of speakers tolls accrual under discovery rule	Anonymity defers accrual until identity discovered	Discovery rule tolls until plaintiff knows of injury and likely cause, but not until identification of speaker; limitations commences once plaintiff discovered the statements	Held: Anonymity does not defer accrual; discovery rule does not require knowing speaker’s identity; limitations ran after Andra discovered the reviews

Key Cases Cited

Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness requires vacating prior orders and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction)
In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (appealability of final pre-suit discovery orders when no suit is contemplated against the target)
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (accrual and operation of the discovery rule in defamation context)
Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc., 434 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2014) (distinguishing defamation and business disparagement and special-damages requirement)
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (elements of defamation and context for claims against anonymous internet speakers)
Nationwide Bi-Weekly Admin., Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying the single-publication rule to internet publications)
Stephan v. Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 20 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (discussing limited/confidential reports as repeated publications)
Harper v. State, 562 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2018) (when a prevailing-party attorney’s-fees claim can keep a case live after other claims become moot)
In re Does 1–10, 242 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (procedural note on suing Doe defendants and later discovering identities)
Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (policy rationale for single-publication rule to limit repeated liability)