Patton Boggs LLP v. Moseley
394 S.W.3d 565
Tex. App.2011Background
- Moseley, a former Patton Boggs LLP partner, withdrew from the partnership effective May 1, 2010.
- Moseley filed an EEOC Charge in December 2010 alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and unequal pay; she claimed she was denied equity partnership and profits from 2007–2010.
- Moseley petitioned the trial court for Rule 202 presuit depositions of two Patton Boggs lawyers and a corporate representative to investigate potential claims.
- Patton Boggs opposed arguing the petition would thwart EEOC jurisdiction, sought to prohibit improper discovery, and claimed the deposition would amount to a fishing expedition.
- Patton Boggs also moved to compel arbitration under the partnership agreement; Moseley opposed; the trial court later granted depositions and partially granted document production, denying arbitration in part.
- On August 15, 2011, the trial court issued an order authorizing Rule 202 depositions and partial document production; Patton Boggs petitioned for mandamus and filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the arbitration denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 202.4(a)(2) findings missing | Patton Boggs contends the court failed to make the required rule 202.4(a)(2) finding. | Moseley contends the proceeding seeks potential claims and thus requires proper findings; the order did not include them. | Trial court abused discretion; mandamus granted to vacate depositions/production. |
| Arbitration jurisdiction in Rule 202 proceeding | Patton Boggs asserts arbitration is proper under the partnership agreement and should be compelled. | Moseley argues the rule 202 petition does not implicate arbitration and the court lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration in this proceeding. | Interlocutory arbitration appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (presuit Rule 202 depositions require explicit 202.4 findings)
- In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (no adequate remedy on appeal for Rule 202 orders; mandamus proper)
- In re Hewlett Packard, 212 S.W.3d 356 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006) (mandamus when trial court abused discretion in Rule 202 order)
- In re Does 1 and 2, 337 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2011) (trial court must expressly make Rule 202.4 findings)
- In re Clapp, 241 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007) (Rule 202.1 pre-suit deposition ancillary to contemplated suit)