## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 24

- 00002

- CV

IN RE META PLATFORMS, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME M ORANDUM OPINION Relator, Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a/ Facebook, Inc. (Meta), has filed a petition for a writ
of mandamus seeking relief from an order compelling the oral deposition of Mark Zuckerb e rg
. Because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial c ourt’s ruling that the State of Texas met its burden to show entitlement to the apex deposition, we deny the writ. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring the relator to show that (1) the trial
court abused its discretio n and (2) the relator lacks a n adequate remedy on appeal.” In re USAA
Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proce eding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)). “Mandamus relief i s only appropriate when the r elators have established that only one outcome in the trial court was permissible under the law.” In r e Murrin Bros. 1885, Ltd. , 603 S.W.3d 53, 56 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus review is available w hen the trial cour t allows an apex deposition to
move forward. See In re Taylor , 401 S.W.3d 69, 72 (Tex. Ap p
. — Houston [ 14th Dist. ] 2009, orig. proceeding). “When reviewing matters committed to a trial court’s discretion, an appellate court may
not substit ute its own judgme nt for the trial court’s ju dgment.” In re Nitla S.A. de C.V. , 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walke r v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). As a result, we may not “set asi de the trial

court ’s [order] unless it is cle ar from the record that the trial court could only reach one
decision.” Id.3

“ When a party seeks to depose a c orporate president or other high

- level corporate official, ‘ the trial court should first determine whether the party seeking the deposition has arguably shown that the official has any unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable
information. ’ ” In re Am. Airlines, Inc. , 634 S.W.3d 38, 40 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Cro wn Cent

. Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia , 9 04 S.W.2 d 125, 128 (Tex. 1995 ) (orig. proceeding) ). “ If that showing has not been made, the trial court must grant a protective
order and ‘ first require the party seeking the deposition to attempt to obtain the discove ry thro ugh less in trusive methods. ’ ” Id. (qu oting Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. , 904 S.W.2d at
128 )

. A party seeking to depose an apex official may then do so only after a good

- faith effort to

secure the information sought by less intrusive methods and “ only af ter est ablishing ‘ (1) that
there is a re asonable indication that the off icial ’ s deposition is calcula ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) that the less intrusive methods of discovery are unsatisfactory, insufficient, or inadequate. ’ ” Id. (quoting Cr own Cent. Petroleum Co rp. , 904 S.W.2d at 128 ).
On this record, it is undisputed tha t Zuckerb e rg is “at the apex of the corporate hierarchy , ” and as a result, the guidelines for taking his deposition as set forth by Crown Central
Petroleum C orp. a pply. In re Am. A irlines, In c. , 634 S.W.3d at 4 1 (quoting Crown Cent.
Petroleum Corp. , 904 S.W.2d at 128 ). When a party seeks to conduct an apex deposition in the
face of a “ motion for protective order to prohibit the deposition ac companied by the offic ial ’ s affidavit den ying any kn owledge of relevant facts, the tri al court should first determine whether the party seeking the deposition has arguably shown that the official has any unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverabl e information. ” Crown Cent. Petroleum Co rp. v. Garc ia , 9 044

S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1995 ) (orig. proceeding) . “ If the party seeking the deposition cannot show that the official has any unique or superior personal knowledge of d iscoverable information, the trial court shoul d gran t the motion for pr otective or der and first require the party

se eking the deposition to attempt to obtain the discovery thr ough less intrusive methods. ” Id.
The State allege s Meta ’ s use of faci al recognition technology violated Section 503.001 of
the Texas Business and Commerce Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice s Act

. In seeking to obtain Zuckerb e rg’s deposition, t he State allege d that he had unique personal knowledge of discoverable i nforma tion relevant to it s claims

. Due to the confi dential nature of the documents inclu ded in their opposition to M eta’s motion for protective order, we decline to discuss the specific s included i n the mandamus record. Instead, we state that we have exam ined and fully co nsidered the petition for a writ of mandamus
and mandamus record , which included documents fi led under seal

. 1 After doing so, we find that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the State met its burden unde r Cro wn C entral Petroleum Corp . As a result, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 2

Jeff Rambin Justice
Date Submit ted: January 1 2 , 20 24 Date Decided: January 1 6 , 2024

1 We grant Meta’s request to “file under sea l the portions of the m anda mus record that have been sealed by the trial court bec ause they contain or discuss confiden tial, commercial sensitive, or proprietary information.”

2 We also deny Meta’s accompanying motion for emerg ency relief

.