Second Court of Appeals

Week of December 8, 2014 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of December 8, 2014

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

In re Siroosian, No. 02-14-00349-CV (Dec. 9, 2014) (orig. proceeding) (Walker, J., joined by Gabriel, J.; Livingston, CJ., concurs and dissents with opinion).

Held: Relators' petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted because Respondent abused his discretion by compelling Relator Ramin Siroosian, one of the plaintiff's treating, non-retained, non-testifying chiropractic doctors, to answer deposition questions about software utilized by and collections, revenues, and billings of Relator Chiropractic Doctor's Clinic (CDC) and a question about political contributions he has made.

Dissent: Although relief is appropriate as to five of the deposition questions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to four of the questions related to collections practices because those questions are admissible under general discovery rules and are not so overly broad as to be comparable to the impermissible questions in the cases cited by the majority.

Rauhauser v. McGibney, No. 02-14-00215-CV (Dec. 11, 2014) (per curiam).

Held: Because Appellant Neal Rauhauser, as the party filing the motion to dismiss, met his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the legal action against him was based on, was related to, or was in response to his exercise of free speech; because Appellees James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. did not attempt to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of their claims against Rauhauser but instead nonsuited their claims; and because Rauhauser's motion to dismiss survived Appellees' nonsuit, we hold that the trial court erred by permitting Rauhauser's motion to be denied by operation of law. On remand for entry of an order of dismissal, Rauhauser is eligible for an award of costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and sanctions.