By Brandon W. Maxey, Edwin J. Castellano, and Rob Rickman 

When Mark Cuban sold his majority stake in the Dallas Mavericks in late 2023, it came as a shock to many of us who follow the Mavs. For years, we had become used to seeing Cuban courtside through the highs and lows of being a Dallas sports fan. Based on recent statements in the media and in recent filings, it sounds as if Cuban still expected to continue that hands-on involvement with the team.  

Cuban now claims that his new minority interest in the franchise seemingly led the majority owners to disregard his input into the team’s major decisions. As a result, Cuban recently filed a Rule 202 petition in Dallas County (a little-known but powerful legal tool) alleging that the team’s new majority ownership made major franchise decisions without his knowledge or consent. At the center of the dispute: a proposed stadium relocation away from downtown. The case offers a window into how minority owners can protect their interests by utilizing a procedural device that every business owner should understand. 

WHAT IS A RULE 202 PETITION? 

Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a person to ask a court for permission to take depositions (i.e. sworn testimony from witnesses) before a lawsuit has actually been filed. It is essentially a formal investigation tool. Rather than committing to full-blown litigation from the start, a party can use Rule 202 to gather critical evidence and determine whether a viable legal claim exists. 

Rule 202.1 provides two distinct uses: either (a) to “perpetuate or obtain” testimony for use in a lawsuit, or (b) to “investigate a potential claim or suit.” In other words, it’s there to figure out whether there is a claim worth bringing at all. 

The procedural requirements are straightforward. To obtain a Rule 202 deposition, a person must prepare a verified petition that is signed under oath, file it in a court where venue would be proper, and identify the following: (a) the subject matter of the anticipated action, (b) the adverse parties (or explain why they cannot be identified), (c) the persons to be deposed, (d) the substance of their expected testimony, and (e) the reasons for seeking the deposition. Under Rule 202.3, the petitioner must serve the petition and a notice of hearing on all persons to be deposed and all expected adverse parties at least 15 days before the hearing. 

What standard does the court apply when determining whether to grant the requested deposition? Under Rule 202.4, a court must order the deposition if it finds either: (1) that allowing the deposition may prevent a “failure or delay of justice” in an anticipated suit, or (2) that the likely benefit of the deposition to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or the expense of the procedure. Once granted, Rule 202.5 allows the party seeking the deposition to ask the same scope of questions to the witness as if the deposition was taken in active litigation. 

THE CUBAN DISPUTE: BACKGROUND AND STAKES 

In late 2023, according to media reports, Mark Cuban sold his majority ownership stake in the Dallas Mavericks to a group led by Miriam Adelson, retaining a minority ownership interest in the franchise. Based on his public statements and media coverage of the issue, Cuban apparently expected to remain involved in major decisions affecting the team’s direction and value. 

His Rule 202 petition, filed in Dallas County, makes it clear that he does not believe that is how things have played out. Cuban alleges that the current majority ownership has made franchise-altering decisions without properly consulting him or obtaining his consent as required under their agreement.  

Two decisions sit at the heart of the controversy. First, the new ownership has proposed relocating the Mavericks’ arena away from the American Airlines Center—a move with enormous implications, both financially for the franchise and for the DFW metroplex. Second, the team traded Luka Dončić, its generational franchise player, in a deal Cuban contends he was never meaningfully consulted about. Cuban argues that both decisions may have materially diminished the value of his minority stake and may have violated the terms of their agreement. 

Rather than file a full-blown lawsuit at this stage, a Rule 202 petition will allow Cuban to investigate first. Through pre-suit depositions of key decision-makers, he likely aims to obtain testimony and documentary evidence about how these decisions were made—who was consulted, what approvals were sought, and whether the agreement’s requirements were followed—before deciding whether to commit to the cost and publicity of full-scale litigation. 

PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS 

Cuban’s filing is high-profile, but the tool he chose is available to any business owner/partner or shareholder facing a similar dispute. Rule 202 petitions are particularly valuable in the following situations: 

Investigating before committing. A Rule 202 petition lets you essentially look before jumping into the deep end of a full lawsuit. If you suspect a business partner, co-owner, or investor has breached an agreement or acted improperly, pre-suit depositions allow you to test the strength of your claim without incurring the substantial costs of suing. You can then make an informed decision about whether litigation is justified. 

Preserving critical evidence. Rule 202 also serves a protective function. If you have reason to believe that evidence—documents, electronic records, or witness testimony—may be lost, destroyed, or become unavailable over time, a Rule 202 petition can preserve that evidence through sworn testimony before it disappears. 

Creating settlement leverage. The mere filing of a Rule 202 petition sends a clear signal: you are serious, organized, and are prepared to litigate if necessary. That signal alone can bring adverse parties to the negotiating table and produce a resolution without the need for trial. 

For any business owner, executive, or investor who finds themselves in a dispute with co-owners or partners—particularly one involving decisions that may have diminished the value of their ownership stake—Rule 202 is a tool worth using. It offers a measured, strategic path: gather the facts, assess the strength of your position, and decide your next move from a position of knowledge rather than speculation.