Motion for Expedited Discovery in Texas

What Is a Motion for Expedited Discovery?

Background

Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code § 27.006 concerns pleadings pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). (Id.) The Act allows limited discovery relevant to the motion. (Id.)

“The stated purpose of the Act is to ‘encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law.’” (Hersh v. Tatum (2017) 526 S.W.3d 462, 466.)

How to Structure the Motion

To accomplish its purpose, the Act endorses a summary process, requiring judicial review of the pleadings and limited evidence, typically within 150 days following service. (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.003(b), .004(a), .005(a); Jennings v. Wallbuilder Presentations, Inc. (2012) 378 S.W.3d 519 at 526; In re Lipsky (2015) 460 S.W.3d 579, 589-90.)

“[T]he statute leaves the possibility for a court to order limited discovery for “good cause” as it relates to the motion itself.” (Id . § 27.006(b); In re Lipsky (2015) 460 S.W.3d 579, 587.)

Code § 27.006 provides:

In determining whether a legal action is subject to or should be dismissed under this chapter, the court shall consider the pleadings, evidence a court could consider under Rule 166a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.
On a motion by a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause, the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion.

(Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code § 27.006)

The Court’s Decision

“Under Section 27.006(a) of the Act, the trial court may consider pleadings when determining whether to dismiss a legal action—the Act does not require a movant to present testimony or other evidence to satisfy his evidentiary burden. (See In re Lipsky (2015) 460 S.W.3d 579, 587 [“[T]he court is to consider the pleadings and any supporting and opposing affidavits” when considering dismissal.]; Serafine v. Blunt (2015) 466 S.W.3d 352, 360.) Similarly, while Section 27.006(b) of the Act provides that ‘[o]n a motion by a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause, the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion,’ nothing in the Act requires a party to seek discovery relevant to the motion.”

“Unlike other types of cases where pleadings are not considered evidence, section 27.006 of the Act, which is entitled ‘Evidence,’ expressly provides, ‘In determining whether a legal action should be dismissed under this chapter, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.’” (Rio Grande H2O Guardian v. Robert Muller Family P'ship Ltd. (2014) No. 04-13-00441-CV, at *5 citing section 27.006.)

Documents for Motion for Expedited Discovery in Texas

Sort By

PANINI AMERICA INC vs. ELI NICHOLAS MATIJEVICH, Jr, et al document preview

SUPP #1 APPELLATE RECORD VOL 1 - APPELLATE RECORD

115 pages

DALLAS-DC-23-04798-CLR-1-SUPP–1-VOL001.pdf: VOLUME 1 OF 2 Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-04798-B Appellate Case No. 05-24-00059-CV In the 44TH District Court of Dallas County, Texas Honorable VERETTA FRAZIER, Judge Presiding ________________________________________________________________________ FANATICS SPV, LLC, ELI NICHOLAS MATIJEVICH, JR., CARLOS TORREZ, DAVID …

Case Name PANINI AMERICA INC vs. ELI NICHOLAS MATIJEVICH, Jr, et al