in Re Rene Estrada, 13-21-00206-CV

Background

Rene Estrada, a former employee of Legacy, All Seasons, and Coastal, left to work for a competitor; those companies and their owner Ambrose Hernandez alleged he breached nondisclosure/noncompete agreements and disclosed confidential information.
Legacy and All Seasons sued Estrada in Bexar County; separately Hernandez, Coastal, Legacy, and All Seasons filed a Rule 202 petition in Cameron County seeking a presuit deposition of Estrada to investigate potential claims and alleged disclosures to a third party (Superior).
Petitioners argued the deposition was needed to identify additional defendants, quantify damages, and preserve evidence; Hernandez submitted declarations and employment agreements as support.
The Cameron County trial court granted the Rule 202 petition and authorized Estrada’s presuit deposition without detailed findings or protective limits.
Estrada sought mandamus relief, arguing the petition failed Rule 202 requirements, the deposition was unnecessary because related litigation and arbitration were pending, and the court erred by not limiting or protecting the deposition.
The Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus, concluding the petitioners failed to show the likely benefit of the presuit deposition outweighed its burden and that the discovery could not instead be obtained in pending proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Rule 202 procedural compliance (notice/identification of adverse parties)	Petitioners contended they satisfied Rule 202; identification/notice requirements did not apply to depositions "to investigate"	Estrada argued petitioners failed to identify/serve adverse parties and failed to give required notice	Court did not need to resolve all procedural objections after finding Rule 202 relief improper; mandamus granted on substantive ground
2. Admission of last-minute declaration	Petitioners relied on Hernandez’s June 23 declaration to support investigation theory	Estrada argued the new declaration altered the petition’s basis and violated notice; objected to admission	Court admitted exhibits below but appellate decision rested on insufficiency of showing benefit outweighs burden, so admission dispute was not dispositive
3. Whether Rule 202 deposition was improper because related litigation/arbitration already pending	Petitioners said deposition was legitimate investigation tool and notice/preservation purpose; deposition could narrow claims/defendants	Estrada argued discovery was available in pending Bexar County suit and arbitration, so presuit deposition was unnecessary and intrusive	Court held petitioners failed to show likely benefit outweighed burden; discovery could be obtained in pending matters; trial court abused discretion and mandamus relief granted
4. Lack of limits/protections on deposition	Petitioners argued scope would be limited to claimed subjects	Estrada argued court should have strictly limited and supervised scope to prevent abuse	Court stressed Rule 202 requires strict limits and protections; because petitioners failed on the substantive showing, the lack of imposed protections supported granting mandamus

Key Cases Cited

In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (Rule 202 relief is ancillary and courts must make required findings before ordering presuit depositions)
In re Does, 337 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2011) (mandatory Rule 202 findings cannot be implied; notice requirements emphasized)
In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (improper Rule 202 orders subject to mandamus relief)
In re DePinho, 505 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2016) (Rule 202 pleading need not allege a specific cause of action; scope limited to what would be allowed if suit were filed)
In re Hewlett-Packard Co., 212 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (caution against using Rule 202 to extract trade secrets or for anti-competitive purposes)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standards for reviewing discovery orders)