Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at 805. Law and Analysis Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: A person may petition the court for an order authorizing the taking of a deposition on oral examination or written questions either: (a) to perpetuate or obtain the person’s own testimony or that of any other person for use in an anticipated suit; or (b) to investigate a potential claim or suit. Tex.R. Civ. P. 202.1. The City contends that the trial court erred by ordering its employees deposed because “U.S. Filter failed to state any valid potential state law cause of action which could serve as the future basis for bringing suit in state court against the City.” Specifically, the City contends that it is immune from any state law claims and that the on ouston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). There is no requirement in Rule 202 that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that private individuals who conspired with judge could be sued even though judge could not (B) holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant (C) holding that party who had sought disqualification of the judge who heard his cause only from the assignment judge and not the judge himself could not appropriately raise recusal issue on appeal (D) holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him (E) recognizing that judge who continued to function after end of term was a de facto judge whose actions could not be collaterally attacked
Output (English): holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant