NO. 07-05-0034-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	FEBRUARY 28, 2007

	______________________________

	MAN FINANCIAL, INC., 

	A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT

	V.

	MAN FINANCIAL, LTD., A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

	JOHN DOE NO. 1, AND JOHN DOE NO. 2,  APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 99TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2004-001,710; HONORABLE MACKEY K. HANCOCK, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J. and REAVIS, S.J.1

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Man Financial, Inc. appeals two discovery rulings of the trial court in favor of appellees Man Financial, Ltd., John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2.  We will affirm. 

	In a suit appellant Man Financial, Inc. filed against appellees in Nevada,2 it sought a preliminary and permanent injunction “prohibiting defendants from using the name ‘Man Financial’ or defendant Man Financial, Ltd.’s name in connection with the furnishing of financial services . . . and (b) striking the corporate registration of defendant Man Financial, Ltd. or, in the alternative, permitting the said defendant to change its name by appropriate filings . . . .”  After the filing of the Nevada lawsuit, Man Financial, Ltd. was dissolved.  

	Pursuant to a commission issued by the Nevada state court, Man Financial, Inc. subpoenaed Mark Artho for a deposition in Texas.3  During the deposition, on the advice of counsel, Artho refused to answer a question about his prior address and refused to provide his fingerprints at the conclusion of the deposition.  Man Financial, Inc. filed a motion to compel, seeking, among other things, to obtain Artho’s fingerprint sample and an answer to the prior address question.  The trial court denied Man Financial, Inc.’s motion to compel and this appeal ensued.  

	The district court’s denial of a motion to compel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.  Johnson v. Davis, 178 S.W.3d 230, 242 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (citing Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004)). By its two issues on appeal, Man Financial, Inc. contends the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to compel Artho to answer the deposition question about his prior address4 and when it refused to compel Artho to submit to Man Financial, Inc.’s fingerprinting request.5

	The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles, or whether, under all the circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s actions were arbitrary or unreasonable.  Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).  We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to compel.  On the record before us, and considering the relief sought in Man Financial, Inc.’s Nevada lawsuit and the undisputed dissolution of Man Financial, Ltd., we agree with Artho that the trial court could have concluded Artho’s prior address and his fingerprints were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a).  We overrule Man Financial, Inc.’s issues on appeal and affirm the ruling of the trial court.

						James T. Campbell

						         Justice