The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a petition from the General Council of the Assemblies of God, which sought to stop a second deposition of its leader, Donna Barrett. The court's decision affects the ongoing legal battle involving allegations against the church organization. This ruling is significant as it highlights the court's stance on procedural matters in civil cases.
The Assemblies of God argued that the trial court's orders, issued on May 27 and June 29, 2026, to compel Barrett's second deposition were improper. The church organization filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which is a legal order that asks a higher court to direct a lower court to take or refrain from a specific action. In this case, the Assemblies of God wanted the appellate court to vacate the trial court's orders.
The dispute arises from a case involving two plaintiffs, identified as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, who have brought allegations against the Assemblies of God and related entities. The underlying case, titled John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 v. The General Council of the Assemblies of God, is being heard in the 234th District Court of Harris County, Texas, with Judge Lauren Reeder presiding. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, and the second deposition of Barrett is seen as crucial for their case.
The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the petition and determined that the Assemblies of God did not meet the necessary criteria for mandamus relief. The court stated, "We conclude that relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus relief, and therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus." This decision means that the trial court's orders for the second deposition will remain in effect.
The panel of justices that ruled on this case included Justices Caughey, Morgan, and Dokupil. Their unanimous decision underscores the challenges that organizations may face when seeking to limit discovery in legal proceedings.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the Assemblies of God and similar organizations. It reinforces the principle that courts generally favor allowing discovery, which includes depositions, in civil litigation. This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving religious organizations and their leaders, particularly in matters where allegations of misconduct are involved.
Going forward, the Assemblies of God may need to prepare for the second deposition of Donna Barrett, which could provide critical testimony in the ongoing case. This ruling also highlights the importance of procedural compliance in legal disputes, as failure to adhere to court orders can lead to unfavorable outcomes.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's decision on the writ of mandamus is typically final and not subject to further appeal. However, the Assemblies of God may continue to contest the underlying case in the trial court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.