Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin J. Pakenham ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-23-00190-CV

Filed Date: 4/27/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/30/2023