1 Don H. Reavis, Ju stice (Re t.), Seven th Court of Appeal s, sittin g by assi gnment. NO. 07-05-0034-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E FEBRUARY 28, 2007

______________________________ MAN FINA NCIAL, IN C., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT

V. MAN FINANCIAL, LTD., A NEVADA LIMITED LIAB ILITY COMPANY, JOHN DOE NO. 1, AND JOHN DOE NO. 2, AP PELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 99 TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2004- 001,710; HONORAB LE MACKE Y K. HAN COCK, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J. and REAVIS, S.J. 1
MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Man Fina ncial, In c. appeal s two dis covery rulings of

the trial court in favor of appel lees Man Financi al, Ltd., John DoeNo. 1 an d John D oe No. 2. We will affirm.2 Man Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation v. Man Fina ncial, Ltd., a Nevada

limited liabil ity com pany, Joh n Doe No . 1 and John Doe No. 2 ; Cause No. CV04-00557 in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe, Department No. 10.

3 Artho is the person who requested the formation of Man Financial, Ltd. and is not a party to

the Neva da lawsu it. 2 In a suit appellant Man Financial, Inc. filed against appellees in Nevada, 2 itsought
a preliminary and permanent injuncti on “prohi biting d efendants from usi ng the na me ‘Man Financial’ or defen dant Ma n Finan cial, 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 chang e its nam e by appr opriate filings . . . .” After the fil ing of th e Nevadalawsuit , Man Fin ancial, Ltd. was dissolve d.
Pursuantto 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 re fused to a nswer a question a bout hisprior ad dress and refused to provide his fingerprints a t the con clusion 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 de nial of a motion to compel is reviewed u nder an abuse of discretion standard

. Johnson v. Dav is , 178 S.W.3d 230, 2 42 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (citing Cire v. Cummings , 134 S.W. 3d 835, 8 38 (Tex. 2004)). By its two i ssues on appe al, Man F inancia l, Inc. co ntends th e trial court abus ed its di screti on whe n4 Man Financial, Inc. argues it is in need of Artho’s prior address because “it could

lead to the discovery of admiss ible evid ence about who besides Artho, if anyone, was involved in forming Man [Financial,] Ltd. and also to allow Man [Fin ancial,] Inc. to i dentify other persons who should be made party to an injunction forbidding use of the name ‘Man Financial.’”

5 Artho provided Man Financial, Inc.’s attorneys a series of documents. Man Financial, Inc.’s attorneys submitted those documents t o a fing erprint expert who noted three differen t sets of f ingerpri nts were present o n the doc ume n ts. Man Financial, Inc. contends Artho’s fingerpri nts “are r elevant to the issue in controversy of which persons were responsible for forming Man Financial, Ltd. Furt her, [Man Fin ancial, Inc. argue s] there is a reasonable nexus between tha t issue a nd the fingerprint examination because the fingerprintexamination is uniquely suited to produce further useful information about who mayhave been involved in forming Man [Financial] Ltd. and whether Artho really was the prime mov er behin d its form ation.” 3 itrefused to compel Artho to answer the deposition que stion abouthis prior address 4 and when it refuse d to compe l Artho to submit to

Man Fina ncial, In c.’s fing erprintin g request

. 5
The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted w ithoutreference to anyguiding rules and principles, or whether, un der all the circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s a ctions were arbit rary or un reasonab le. D owner v. A quamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discr etion b y denying the motion to compel. On the record before us, a nd considering the relief sought in Man Financial, Inc. ’s Nevada lawsuit and the undisputed dissolution of Man Fi nancial , Ltd., weagree wi th Artho t h at the trial court could have concluded Artho’s prior address and his fingerprints were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of a dmi ssi ble evid ence. T EX . R. C IV . P. 192.3(a). We overrule Man Financi al, Inc.’ s issueson appe al and a ffirm the r uling of the trial court.
James T. Campbell Justice