DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 13, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00397-CV IN RE JANTZEN VERASTIQUE On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01696 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Before the Court is appellee Jantzen Ve rastique’s motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The a ppeal, filed by the Dallas Police Department (DPD), challenges the tria l court’s April 11, 2022 or der granting Verastique’s amended rule 202 petition for pre-suit de position of a DPD representative. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 202.1. Verastique asserts in her moti on that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the order is not final or otherwise appealable. We agree. It is well-settled that an appeal may be taken only from final orders that dispose of all parties and claims or interl ocutory orders as authorized by statute. See Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order on a petition for pre-suit deposition is final and app ealable if the deposition is sought from–2– someone against whom suit is not anticipated , as the order disposes of the only issue between the parties—discovery. In re Jorden , 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); IFS Sec. Grp., Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 175 S.W.3d 560, 562 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.). If the deposition is sought from an anticipated defendant, the order is deemed ancillary to the subsequent suit and is neither final nor otherwise appealable. In re Jorden , 249 S.W.3d at 419. As reflected in the record, Verastique filed her petition pursuant to rule 202.1(b). See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 202.1(b). Rule 202.1(b) a llows a person to petition the trial court for an order authorizing the taking of a deposition to investigate a potential claim or suit. See id. Verastique’s petition alle ged she was “ambushed” by DPD officers “armed with pepper ball la unchers” and arrested during a protest following the May 2020 “murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police Officers.” She sought the deposition of a DPD repres entative to investigate potential claims against DPD “concerning the Texas Tort Clai ms Act . . . and ot her potential legal claims” stemming from the actions DPD officers took against her. 1 Verastique asserts in her motion to dismiss that the order granting her permission to depose a DPD representa tive is interlocutory and unappealable because DPD is an an ticipated defendant. See In re Jorden , 249 S.W.3d at 419.

1 Verastique asserts in her motion that the statut e of limitations for her potential claims against DPD expires May 30, 2022. She notes that because of th e appeal, enforcement of the order is suspended, see T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 6.002(b), T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(h), and asks we dismiss the appeal “without delay” so she can take the deposition authorized by the order.–3– DPD disputes that in its response to the motion. DPD asserts a rule 202.1(b) petition does not contemplate a future suit. It main tains that if Verastique anticipated filing suit against DPD, she would have filed he r petition under rule 202. 1(a) which allows the taking of a deposition to perpetuate or obtain testimony in an anticipated suit. 2
See id. 202.1(a). That rule 202.1(a) concer ns perpetuating or obtaining testimony in an anticipated suit does not mean, however, that rule 202.1(b) does not contemplate a future suit. A 202.1(b) petitioner may anticipate filing suit but still need to investigate the precise nature of the claims or discover the identity of the potential defendant. See In re City of Dallas , 501 S.W.3d 71, 73-74 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (rule 202 petitioner sought to inve stigate potential tortious interference claim against the City of Dallas a nd also anticipated filing suit); In re John Doe , 444 S.W.3d 603, 604-05 (Tex. 2014) (rule 202 petiti oner sought to discover identity of anonymous blogger and also anticipated f iling suit asserting claims for libel and business disparagement against blogger); In re Alexander , 251 S.W.3d 798, 799 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (rule 202 petitioner sought to investigate potential legal malpractice clai m against attorney and anticipated filing suit). We conclude DPD’ s argument lacks merit.

2 DPD asserts in its response that it is preparing to file a companion petition for writ of mandamus and “suggests that the Court should carry the [jurisdictiona l] issue forward until this appeal and the related mandamus proceeding have been duly briefed.” We decline to do so.–4– Because the appealed order authorizes Verastique to depose a representative of DPD and DPD is an anticipated defenda nt, the order is not final or otherwise appealable. See In re Jorden , 249 S.W.3d at 419. Accordingly, we grant Verastique’s motion and dismiss the ap peal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

220397F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT IN RE JANTZEN VERASTIQUE
No. 05-22-00397-CV On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01696. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered May 13, 2022.