I am honored to continue The Grubb Report, Now Presented by Marcus Eason, which was started by my colleague William Grubb. Like Mr. Grubb, I am a Texas trial lawyer that focuses on commercial and oil and gas litigation. As before, The Grubb Report, Now Presented by Marcus Eason will focus on updates in Texas law and procedure, as well as my general musings, thoughts, and ideas that may appear in the head of a Texas litigator.
In this episode of The Grubb Report, I want to call the readers’ attention to the recent adoption of Texas Rule 201.3 by the Supreme Court of Texas, which implements the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (UIDD) for depositions and document requests that occur in Texas.
In the past and under the former Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 201.2, out-of-state attorneys desiring to take oral or written depositions in the State of Texas had to first obtain some order or process (a “mandate, writ, or commission”) from the jurisdiction in which the case was pending. Then, such “mandate, writ, or commission” could be used to compel a witness to comply, in the same manner as Texas subpoenas – but of course that would potentially require the out-of-state attorney to commence a Texas proceeding, which becomes complicated if the attorney is not licensed in Texas.
Now, the Supreme Court of Texas has implemented the UIDD, which streamlines the taking of depositions and requests for documents for use in out-of-state proceedings. Under the new Rule 201.3, to compel deposition attendance or the production of documents in Texas, the out-of-state attorney need only “submit [their] out-of-state subpoena to a clerk of a district or county court in the county in which the discovery is sought to be conducted in Texas.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 201.3(b)(1). At that time, the clerk will issue a Texas subpoena for the discovery sought. Tex. R. Civ. P. 201.3(b)(2). No more “mandates, writs, or commissions” are needed, which potentially increases the number of foreign depositions being taken in Texas’ borders. Additionally, the new Rule 201.3 specifically provides that the request for the Texas subpoena does not constitute an appearance in a Texas court – so out-of-state attorneys need not wonder if local counsel is necessary to effectuate their out-of-state process.
For some of you with wide-ranging practices, it may make compelling discovery out of state simpler. For example, several jurisdictions (including Alabama and Georgia) that have adopted the UIDD only allow attorneys from states that have similarly adopted the UIDD to take advantage of the streamlined procedure for deposition and document requests. Ala. Code 12-21-406; O.C.G.A. 35-13-112. In my practice, determining how to compel out-of-state discovery can sometimes be a chore, but now, if I want to compel certain discovery, I will check to make sure that the receiving state has adopted their own version of the UIDD, and I will make sure that I understand whatever reciprocity provisions exist.
To date, according to the Uniform Law Commission, every state but New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Missouri has enacted the UIDD. At the time of this writing, Massachusetts and Missouri have introduced legislation aimed at adopting the UIDD.
The Texas version of the UIDD, found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 201.3, is in effect as of September 1, 2025.