in Re: City of Tatum, Texas, 567 S.W.3d 800

Peterson filed a verified Rule 202 petition seeking pre‑suit oral depositions of the Tatum police chief and records custodian and production of personnel records, policies, radio logs, and recordings relating to an alleged sexual assault by Officer Terry Loftis on May 7, 2018.
Her petition asserted anticipated claims against Loftis and the City, alleged the City knew or was indifferent to Loftis’s propensity, and said she needed discovery to decide the proper forum and to investigate potential claims.
The trial court (Respondent) granted the Rule 202 petition and ordered depositions and document production within 45 days; the City filed an original mandamus petition and obtained a temporary stay from the court of appeals.
The Court of Appeals considered whether the trial court abused its discretion by (a) granting Rule 202 discovery without supporting evidence, (b) failing to make the mandatory Rule 202.4(a) findings, and (c) ordering production of documents in a Rule 202 proceeding.
The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion because Peterson introduced no competent evidence to support the required Rule 202 findings and the order contained no express findings; it nevertheless held document production may be authorized under Rule 202.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner presented competent evidence to satisfy Rule 202’s required findings	Peterson relied on her verified petition and counsel’s hearing arguments as adequate proof	City argued petitioner presented no testimony or competent evidence to meet Rule 202’s burden	Held: Petitioner failed to present competent evidence; pleadings and counsel argument are insufficient
Whether the trial court made the mandatory Rule 202.4(a) findings	Petition was for both perpetuation and investigation; findings can be implied from record	City argued findings are required and none were made in the order	Held: Findings are mandatory and must be express; absence of express findings is an abuse of discretion
Whether document production may be ordered in a Rule 202 proceeding	Peterson sought production of policies, personnel files, radio logs, recordings as part of depositions	City argued production of documents is improper presuit	Held: Permissible — Rule 202.5 incorporates deposition rules allowing production requests when within scope of discovery
Whether petitioner may pursue both Rule 202(a) (perpetuate) and (b) (investigate) simultaneously	Peterson and counsel treated petition as serving both purposes	City contended petitioner must identify the proper Rule 202 purpose	Held: Rule 202’s language separates the two purposes; petitioner’s conflation undermined required findings and analysis

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus standards and extraordinary‑relief principles)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus prerequisites and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (presuit discovery is disfavored and must be strictly limited)
In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (Rule 202 orders may be reviewed by mandamus)
In re Does, 337 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2011) (Rule 202.4 findings cannot be implied; express findings required)
Cauley v. [Unnamed], 437 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014) (Rule 202 orders require express findings; abuse of discretion if omitted)
Mandel v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 499 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016) (apply plain language of civil rules; mandatory nature of procedural requirements)
In re Hewlett‑Packard Co., 212 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (Rule 202 proceedings do not adjudicate merits; they seek information about anticipated claims)