In re Susan Gail Perrilloux

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas conditionally granted in part and denied in part Susan Gail Perrilloux’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging a contempt order arising from a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 pre-suit deposition. The court held that document production may be compelled in a Rule 202 proceeding and upheld the production-related portions of the order. It vacated the $18,566.34 monetary sanction because Rule 215.2(b) does not authorize attorney’s fees and expenses against a nonparty deponent, while upholding the potential contempt confinement and fine.

Holdings

1. Mandamus relief was unavailable for Perrilloux's personal-jurisdiction complaint because she had an adequate remedy through an interlocutory appeal from the denial of her special appearance and voluntarily dismissed that appeal.
2. The real parties in interest met their pleading burden concerning their interest in the anticipated action, and Perrilloux could not establish an abuse of discretion based on lack of standing.
3. Rule 202 permits a petitioner to request production of documents in connection with a pre-suit deposition.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Perrilloux to produce documents relating to the purported Hamp Williams Trust, including the R.E. Trabue judgment and the related power of attorney, even though those documents did not themselves contain the words 'trust' or 'trust estate.'
5. Rule 215.2(b) does not authorize an award of reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs against a nonparty Rule 202 deponent; the trial court therefore abused its discretion by imposing $18,566.34 in such sanctions.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a warrant to issue if Perrilloux failed to comply with the portion of the contempt order that remained effective, because section 21.002(b) authorizes confinement for contempt for up to six months.
7. Mandamus was proper to review the challenged contempt sanctions because contempt orders are not appealable and Perrilloux therefore lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether mandamus review was available to challenge the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Perrilloux after she voluntarily dismissed her interlocutory appeal from the denial of her special appearance.
2. Whether the real parties in interest adequately pleaded standing to bring the Rule 202 proceeding.
3. Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 permits a pre-suit deposition subpoena to require production of documents.
4. Whether the subpoena and Rule 202 order adequately identified the documents Perrilloux was required to produce.
5. Whether Rule 215.2(b) authorizes attorney's fees, costs, and expenses as sanctions against a nonparty deponent in a Rule 202 proceeding.
6. Whether the trial court could order a fine and possible arrest and confinement for failure to comply with the remaining discovery obligations.

Disposition

writ_granted