International Association of Drilling Contractors v. Orion Drilling Company, LLC and Integrated Drive Systems, LLC, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12892

International Association of Drilling Contractors (the Association) publishes safety alerts based on incident reports submitted via a web form that requests the reporter’s name and other identifying information and asks whether the alert may be published anonymously.
A report about an incident on an Orion rig (using Integrated’s systems) led to a safety alert that named the rig/location and referred to Integrated; the alert was taken offline after Integrated complained.
Orion Drilling Co. and Integrated Drive Systems (petitioners) filed a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petition seeking a pre-suit deposition of a corporate representative of the Association to learn the identity of the informant and related communications, to investigate potential business-disparagement claims.
The trial court authorized a limited deposition solely to discover the informant’s identity and communications with the Association, finding the likely benefit outweighed the burden.
The Association appealed, arguing First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, protection under the Texas Free Flow of Information Act, noncompliance with Rule 202, and that the petition circumvented the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
The court of appeals affirmed, holding no First Amendment privilege applied, the Association waived the statutory reporter privilege by not raising it below, Rule 202 was properly applied, and the TCPA argument was unpreserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First Amendment bars disclosure of informant’s identity	Association: disclosure would chill anonymous reporting and is protected speech	Orion/Integrated: form required identifying info and no evidence reporter intended anonymity	Court: No First Amendment privilege; reporter did not demonstrate a decision to remain anonymous
Whether Texas Free Flow of Information Act protects disclosure	Association: statutory reporter privilege shields source identity	Orion/Integrated: not invoked below; no protection	Court: Act not considered because Association failed to raise it in trial court (waived)
Whether Rule 202 prerequisites and balancing satisfied	Association: petition caption/form defects and burden outweighs benefit; should have sued first	Orion/Integrated: complied substantively; need pre-suit discovery to investigate potential claim	Court: Rule 202 satisfied; benefit of identifying source (to investigate business-disparagement claim) outweighed burden; caption error not reversible
Whether TCPA barred discovery or required dismissal first	Association: TCPA protects speech and Rule 202 petition circumvents TCPA	Orion/Integrated: petition not subject to TCPA dismissal because Association did not move to dismiss under TCPA	Court: TCPA argument not preserved—Association did not file a TCPA motion to dismiss; cannot prevail on appeal

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (anonymity in speech can be protected by the First Amendment)
Univ. of Pa. v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182 (1990) (First Amendment does not automatically create a privilege shielding identification of authors in discovery)
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (refusing a First Amendment-based privilege for reporters to avoid revealing confidential sources in certain contexts)
In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (pre-suit discovery under Rule 202 must be strictly limited and carefully supervised)
Ross Stores v. Redken Labs., 810 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. 1991) (pre-suit discovery orders are appealable when sought from third parties not anticipated as defendants)
In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (clarifying appealability of Rule 202 orders when discovery is sought from non-anticipated defendants)
Forbes Inc. v. Granada Bioscis., Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (discussing elements and nature of business-disparagement claims)