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, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellee Jantzen Verastique’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appeal, filed by the Dallas Police Department 

(DPD), challenges the trial court’s April 11, 2022 order granting Verastique’s 

amended rule 202 petition for pre-suit deposition of a DPD representative. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 202.1. Verastique asserts in her motion 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 interlocutory 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 appealable 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 pet.). 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 TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.1(b). Rule 202.1(b) allows 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 alleged she was “ambushed” 

by DPD officers “armed with pepper ball launchers” and arrested during a protest 

following the May 2020 “murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police Officers.” 

She sought the deposition of a DPD representative to investigate potential claims 

against DPD “concerning the Texas Tort Claims Act . . . and other 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 representative is interlocutory and unappealable 

because DPD is an anticipated defendant. See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d at 419. 

1

 Verastique asserts in her motion that the statute of limitations for her potential claims against DPD 

expires May 30, 2022. She notes that because of the appeal, enforcement of the order is suspended, see 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 6.002(b), TEX. R. APP. 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 maintains that if Verastique anticipated filing 

suit against DPD, she would have filed her 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) concerns 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 investigate potential tortious interference 

claim against the City of Dallas and also anticipated filing suit); In re John Doe, 444 

S.W.3d 603, 604-05 (Tex. 2014) (rule 202 petitioner sought to discover identity of 

anonymous blogger and also anticipated filing 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 claim 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 [jurisdictional] 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 defendant, 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 appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. 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.