Court Opinion

ID: 9391119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-30 07:11:41.268783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.562466
License: Public Domain

Motion to Dismiss Granted and Memorandum Opinion filed April 27, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-23-00190-CV

                     CAROLYN R. DAWSON, Appellant

                                        V.
                       KEVIN J. PAKENHAM, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court
                          Fort Bend County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-279119

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In the underlying proceeding, the trial court granted a protective order
pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6 (“A
person from whom discovery is sought . . . may move within the time permitted for
response to the discovery request for an order protecting that person from the
discovery sought.”). Appellant filed a motion to dissolve the protective order,
asserting that she properly requested from Appellee the discovery at issue.
      On March 16, 2023, the trial court signed an order denying Appellant’s
motion to dissolve the protective order. Appellant filed a notice of interlocutory
appeal asserting her intent to challenge the trial court’s March 16, 2023 order.

      Appellee filed a motion to dismiss and asserted that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over Appellant’s interlocutory appeal. Appellant filed a response to
Appellee’s motion.

      Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of
all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable
until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total
Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc.
v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

      Here, the trial court’s March 16, 2023 order is not a final judgment — it is
an order denying Appellant’s request to dissolve a protective order limiting
discovery she sought from Appellee. Discovery orders are interlocutory in nature
and therefore are not appealable until after a final judgment is entered. See, e.g.,
Shanks v. Wair, No. 02-20-00138-CV, 2020 WL 5415225, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Sept. 10, 2020, no pet.). (mem. op.) (per curiam) (dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a protective order with
respect to certain discovery requests); Chehab v. Mac Haik Chevrolet, Ltd., No.
14-16-01009-CV, 2017 WL 422145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan.
31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (“The denial of a party’s motion to
compel discovery is an interlocutory order not subject to appeal.”); see also In re
Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam) (discovery order is reviewable for abuse of discretion for which mandamus
is the appropriate remedy).

                                          2
      In her response to Appellee’s motion to dismiss, Appellant did not cite any
statute that would permit her to appeal the trial court’s order denying her request to
dissolve the protective order.     Nor has this court found any such authority
permitting an interlocutory appeal under these circumstances.             Appellant’s
response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

      We grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss and order the appeal dismissed.

                                                            PER CURIAM

      Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.

                                          3