Rule 202 Personal Jurisdiction Requirement | Torres v. Lummus (2026)

Torres v. Lummus, 01-24-00818-CV, October 30, 2026.

On appeal from 122nd District Court, Galveston County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 does not authorize pre-suit discovery for use in an anticipated action unless the petitioner establishes that the trial court would have personal jurisdiction over the anticipated defendants. Because Lummus failed to make that jurisdictional showing, the First Court of Appeals reversed the order permitting discovery and rendered judgment denying the Rule 202 petition.

Relevance to Family Law

Rule 202 can arise in family-law-adjacent disputes when a prospective litigant seeks information from a spouse, former partner, financial adviser, employer, paramour, business associate, or digital-service provider before filing suit. Torres establishes that, when the requested discovery is for use in an anticipated action, counsel must do more than identify a possible claim and a useful witness: the petitioner must establish personal jurisdiction over the anticipated defendants.

That requirement can be decisive in disputes involving concealed marital assets, out-of-state business entities, electronic communications, alleged fraudulent transfers, parentage-related claims, or contemplated tort claims between spouses and third parties. If a divorce, SAPCR, or enforcement proceeding can already be filed, ordinary post-filing discovery will often be procedurally safer. Rule 202 should not be treated as a mechanism to discover enough jurisdictional facts to justify filing an otherwise speculative suit against unknown or nonresident parties.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Coltin Lummus filed a verified Rule 202 petition in Galveston County seeking to depose Skye Torres and her mother, Amanda Trevino, and to obtain documents before filing suit. Lummus alleged that he and Torres had been in a romantic relationship, that Torres became pregnant, and that she later terminated the pregnancy. He asserted that Torres had not disclosed how the alleged abortion was obtained or the identity of persons who may have assisted her.

Lummus characterized the requested discovery as evidence for an anticipated action under the Texas Heartbeat Act and the Texas Wrongful Death statute. The anticipated defendants were individuals or entities that allegedly aided or abetted the abortion, but their identities, residences, and jurisdictional contacts were unknown. Lummus stated that he needed discovery from Torres and Trevino to identify those persons, evaluate possible claims and defenses, and determine whom to sue.

Torres and Trevino moved to transfer venue to Harris County, where they resided. They also argued that Lummus was not entitled to Rule 202 relief. Among other points, they contended that the petition was functionally an effort to investigate a potential claim rather than to preserve evidence for an anticipated suit. That distinction mattered because Rule 202 imposes different venue requirements and findings depending on the purpose of the petition.

The trial court denied the motion to transfer venue and granted the requested pre-suit discovery. Torres and Trevino appealed, arguing in part that Lummus had failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the unknown defendants he anticipated suing.

Issues Decided

Whether a petitioner seeking Rule 202 discovery for use in an anticipated suit must establish that the trial court would have personal jurisdiction over the anticipated defendants.
Whether Lummus satisfied that requirement when the identities, residences, and jurisdictional contacts of the anticipated defendants had not been established.
Whether the appropriate appellate disposition was to reverse the discovery order and render judgment denying the Rule 202 petition.

Because the personal-jurisdiction issue was dispositive, the court did not need to resolve every alternative challenge to venue or the substantive viability of the contemplated claims.

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.1. A person may petition for an order authorizing a deposition either to perpetuate or obtain testimony for use in an anticipated suit or to investigate a potential claim or suit.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.2(b). If suit is anticipated, the petition must be filed in a proper court of a county where venue of the anticipated suit may lie. If no suit is yet anticipated, the petition generally must be filed where the witness resides.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.4(a)(1). For discovery sought in connection with an anticipated suit, the trial court must find that allowing the deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in that suit.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.4(a)(2). For discovery sought to investigate a potential claim, the court must find that the likely benefit of the requested discovery outweighs its burden or expense.
In re Doe, 444 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding). A Rule 202 petitioner seeking discovery for an anticipated action must establish that the trial court would have personal jurisdiction over the anticipated defendant. Rule 202 does not independently enlarge a Texas court’s jurisdiction.

The court also considered the contemplated statutory theories under the Texas Heartbeat Act, Texas Health and Safety Code sections 171.201–.212, and the Texas Wrongful Death statute, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 71. Those potential causes of action did not eliminate the threshold jurisdictional requirements governing Rule 202 proceedings.

Application

Lummus consistently asserted that he sought discovery for use in an anticipated suit against persons or entities that allegedly assisted Torres. That characterization allowed him to argue that venue was proper where the anticipated action could be brought, rather than exclusively in the county where Torres and Trevino resided. It also triggered the jurisdictional requirement recognized in In re Doe.

The problem was that Lummus had not identified the anticipated defendants or established facts connecting them to Texas in a manner sufficient to support personal jurisdiction. Indeed, the petition sought discovery partly to determine who those defendants were, where they resided, and where suit might be filed. The same lack of information that motivated the requested discovery prevented Lummus from satisfying the threshold jurisdictional requirement.

The trial court’s conclusion that Galveston County could be a proper venue for the anticipated suit did not substitute for a personal-jurisdiction analysis. Venue and personal jurisdiction are distinct. A petitioner must establish not only that the selected county may be a proper geographic location for the contemplated litigation, but also that Texas courts may exercise adjudicatory authority over the parties expected to be sued.

Rule 202 could not be used to obtain the discovery necessary to create the missing jurisdictional foundation. Under In re Doe, the jurisdictional showing had to precede the grant of pre-suit discovery. Because Lummus failed to make that showing, the trial court lacked a proper basis to authorize the requested depositions and document production.

Holding

The First Court of Appeals held that a petitioner seeking Rule 202 discovery for use in an anticipated suit must establish that the trial court would have personal jurisdiction over the anticipated defendants. The requirement applies even when the requested discovery is intended to identify those defendants or obtain information bearing on the contemplated claims.

The court further held that Lummus did not satisfy that requirement. He had not identified the anticipated defendants or established jurisdictional facts showing that they would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas.

Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by granting the Rule 202 petition. The appellate court reversed the discovery order and rendered judgment denying the petition rather than remanding for further proceedings.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Torres is most important when Rule 202 is being considered as a pre-filing investigative device. A practitioner who knows enough to file a divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement action, bill of review, or related civil claim should carefully evaluate whether to file the case and use ordinary discovery instead. Once a proper action is pending, the governing discovery rules offer broader and more familiar tools, subject to relevance, proportionality, privilege, and protective-order limitations.

In a concealed-property matter, for example, a spouse may suspect that marital funds were transferred to an out-of-state entity or business associate. A Rule 202 petition seeking to identify the recipient must address personal jurisdiction over the anticipated defendant—not merely the Texas residence of the spouse who possesses relevant information. Evidence may include Texas-directed transactions, contractual relationships, business operations, ownership interests, communications, or other purposeful contacts connected to the contemplated claims.

The same issue may arise when a parent seeks pre-suit discovery from a social-media platform, data custodian, medical provider, school, employer, or other third party. Counsel should distinguish between the person from whom discovery is requested and the person against whom suit is anticipated. Establishing jurisdiction over the proposed deponent does not necessarily establish jurisdiction over the anticipated defendant.

The petition must also commit to the correct Rule 202 theory. A petition for use in an anticipated suit carries different venue and findings requirements from a petition seeking to investigate a potential claim. Pleadings and verifications that shift between those theories may undermine venue arguments and suggest that the anticipated litigation is not sufficiently concrete.

Finally, family lawyers should anticipate Rule 202 requests directed at their clients. A response should separately challenge subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over anticipated defendants, venue, verification, statutory standing, the required Rule 202.4 findings, proportionality, privilege, privacy, and the availability of ordinary discovery after filing suit. Torres provides a threshold ground for denial before the court reaches the breadth or burden of the requested discovery.

Checklists

Preparing a Rule 202 Petition for an Anticipated Suit

Identify the anticipated causes of action with sufficient specificity.
Identify each anticipated defendant, if reasonably possible.
Plead the jurisdictional basis applicable to each anticipated defendant.
Gather evidence of purposeful contacts with Texas.
Connect those Texas contacts to the anticipated claims when relying on specific jurisdiction.
Determine whether general jurisdiction could apply and plead supporting facts.
Explain why the selected county is a county where venue of the anticipated suit may lie.
Identify the witnesses to be deposed and the documents sought.
Explain how the requested discovery may prevent a failure or delay of justice.
Tailor the discovery to the stated purpose of the petition.
Ensure that the petition and verification consistently characterize the proceeding as involving an anticipated suit.
Avoid relying on Rule 202 discovery to supply the jurisdictional facts that must exist before discovery is authorized.

Evaluating Whether Ordinary Family-Law Discovery Is Preferable

Determine whether a divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, or related civil action is already ripe for filing.
Confirm that the prospective client has standing and that the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction.
Evaluate whether temporary orders or expedited discovery would preserve the evidence.
Consider subpoenas, requests for production, depositions, disclosures, and third-party discovery after filing.
Determine whether injunctive relief is needed to prevent transfer or destruction of property.
Consider preservation letters and litigation-hold demands.
Evaluate whether a receivership, turnover remedy, audit, tracing order, or temporary restraining order may be available.
Compare the cost and appellate risk of Rule 202 proceedings with filing the underlying action.

Responding to a Rule 202 Petition

Determine whether the petition invokes an anticipated suit, an investigation of a potential claim, or both.
Challenge inconsistencies between the petition, verification, requested relief, and hearing evidence.
Demand proof of personal jurisdiction over each anticipated defendant.
Distinguish jurisdiction over the proposed witness from jurisdiction over the anticipated defendant.
Challenge conclusory allegations about Texas contacts.
Examine whether venue is proper under Rule 202.2(b).
Require the petitioner to prove the applicable Rule 202.4 finding.
Object to discovery that is broader than what would be available in the contemplated suit.
Assert attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, medical privacy, statutory confidentiality, and other applicable protections.
Request a protective order if complete denial is not obtained.
Preserve objections and secure rulings on each dispositive ground.
Consider appellate remedies if the trial court authorizes discovery without the required jurisdictional showing.

Establishing Personal Jurisdiction

Identify whether the anticipated defendant is an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust, or governmental entity.
Determine the defendant’s residence, domicile, principal place of business, and place of formation.
Identify Texas-directed conduct related to the anticipated claim.
Document Texas transactions, communications, contracts, property interests, or business activities.
Analyze whether the anticipated claim arises from or relates to those Texas contacts.
Address purposeful availment and foreseeable litigation in Texas.
Evaluate whether exercising jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Attach affidavits, declarations, records, or other competent evidence supporting the jurisdictional allegations.
Analyze personal jurisdiction separately from venue.
Avoid assuming that conduct affecting a Texas resident automatically establishes personal jurisdiction.

Preserving the Record for Appeal

Obtain a court reporter for all Rule 202 hearings.
Introduce jurisdictional evidence formally rather than relying only on counsel’s argument.
Secure written rulings on the Rule 202 petition and any motion to transfer venue.
Request findings addressing the applicable Rule 202.4 standard.
Object when the trial court conflates venue with personal jurisdiction.
Preserve challenges to verification, standing, jurisdiction, venue, burden, scope, and privilege.
Ensure that all operative petitions, responses, exhibits, and hearing transcripts are included in the appellate record.
Request a stay or protective relief when necessary to prevent disclosure before appellate review.

Citation

Torres v. Lummus, No. 01-24-00818-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 30, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~55046698-774a-4313-aeef-4df2597e1911~~

Share this content: