Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
mandamus petition, relators, Jeremy Pickrell and Erbe USA,
Inc., contend that the trial court abused its discretion by
ordering the deposition of Pickrell and the production of
various documents under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202. Because we conclude that
real party in interest CONMED Corporation has failed to
provide sufficient evidence to establish the Rule 202
factors, and because Rule 202 does not authorize the pre-suit
discovery of documents, we conditionally grant relators'
This mandamus proceeding arises out of CONMED's verified,
pre-suit petition to take a Rule 202 deposition of its former
employee, Pickrell, and to obtain various documents.
Specifically, in its verified petition, CONMED asserted the
CONMED requests the Rule 202 deposition of its former
employee, Jeremy Pickrell ("Pickrell"), for the
purpose of investigating whether Pickrell has honored his
non-disclosure, non-compete, client non-solicitation, and
employee non-solicitation agreements and/or whether Pickrell
has complied with his common law and statutory duties
regarding CONMED's confidential information and trade
secrets since his December 15, 2016 resignation.
. . . .
Ultimately, CONMED seeks to determine whether there is a
factual basis for CONMED to assert claims against Pickrell
for breach of any of his restrictive covenant agreements
and/or breach of his common law and statutory duties
concerning CONMED's confidential information and trade
secrets. CONMED further seeks to determine if injunctive
relief is warranted, if any equitable extension of one or
more of Pickrell's restrictive covenants is appropriate,
and/or whether Pickrell has proximately caused CONMED
contractual or economic damages since resigning.
also noted that Pickrell previously worked for CONMED as a
sales representative and that he signed non-disclosure,
non-compete, client non-solicitation, and employee
non-solicitation provisions as part of his employment
agreement with the company.
[s]ince his resignation, CONMED learned that Pickrell may be
violating his contractual, common law, and statutory duties
owed to CONMED. Shortly after the end of his employment with
the Company, upon information and belief, Pickrell started
working for Erbe USA, Incorporated ("Erbe") in a
sales capacity. Erbe is a direct competitor of CONMED and it
markets directly to the same customer base as CONMED.
Pickrell may, in fact, be working in the same or
substantially similar capacity as his role with CONMED, in
the same territory, in violation of his contractual promises.
than its verified petition and the argument of counsel at the
hearing on the Rule 202 requests, CONMED did not proffer any
additional evidence supporting its contentions.
event, based on the aforementioned belief that Pickrell may
be violating his employment agreements with CONMED by working
for Erbe, CONMED ...