Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Durrell
547 S.W.3d 299
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- Five-year-old student C.B.D. was injured at Wilson Montessori Elementary; injuries included jaw fracture and lost teeth.
- Father Albert Durrell filed a Texas Rule 202 petition seeking a pre‑suit investigatory deposition of an HISD representative and production of surveillance video and investigation materials.
- Durrell alleged possible causes including out‑of‑scope employee conduct, excessive force, negligence, or actions by nonemployees; he sought discovery to investigate potential claims against HISD or others.
- HISD filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (arguing waiver only for motor‑vehicle incidents) and argued failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Education Code §22.0514.
- The trial court denied HISD’s plea; HISD appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding the Rule 202 petition could proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity bars Rule 202 investigatory pre‑suit discovery when the underlying tort (if any) is not a motor‑vehicle claim | Durrell: Rule 202 seeks investigatory discovery into potential claims (including non‑vehicle claims or claims against nonemployees); petitioner need only show the court would have jurisdiction over the anticipated action, not that the government is a clearly liable defendant | HISD: TTCA waives immunity only for motor‑vehicle claims against school districts; because no vehicle was involved, immunity bars jurisdiction over this matter | Court: Overruled. Rule 202 petitions are investigatory; denial of plea proper because Rule 202 does not require that the entity from which discovery is sought be subject to suit on the anticipated claim (petition need only show potential jurisdiction over anticipated action) |
| Whether failure to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies under Education Code §22.0514 deprives court of jurisdiction over Rule 202 petition | Durrell: He alleges possible claims against nonemployees (for which exhaustion is not required) and lacks the information (held by HISD) to know if exhaustion against professional employees would be required; Rule 202 exists precisely for this information gathering | HISD: Plaintiff failed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies as required before suing professional school employees; absent exhaustion, court lacks jurisdiction | Court: Overruled. Because petitioner alleged potential claims against nonemployees (no exhaustion required) and lacked information to know the need for administrative exhaustion, failure to plead exhaustion did not defeat jurisdiction over the Rule 202 petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for pleading jurisdiction and review of plea to the jurisdiction)
- In re City of Dallas, 501 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2016) (a court hearing a Rule 202 petition must have subject‑matter jurisdiction over the anticipated action)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (school‑district immunity under TTCA limited; waiver covers motor‑vehicle claims)
- Combs v. Texas Civil Rights Project, 410 S.W.3d 529 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (discussing Rule 202 investigatory petitions and balancing benefit vs. burden)
- In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (Rule 202 cannot be used to obtain discovery that would otherwise be barred in the anticipated action)
- In re John Doe, 444 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. 2014) (clarifying Rule 202 petitioner may or may not anticipate filing suit; proper court analysis depends on that determination)