In Re: David Latham, M.D., Dillon Paul, M.D., and Akram Abd El Kader, M.D. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • DENIED and Opinion Filed October 1, 2024
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-24-00950-CV
    IN RE DAVID LATHAM, M.D., DILLON PAUL, M.D., AND
    AKRAM ABD EL KADER, M.D., Relators
    Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-04271
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
    Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
    In this original proceeding, relators seek mandamus relief from three
    discovery orders: (1) Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel EHC Consulting,
    LLC’s Responses to Subpoena and Request for Sanctions; (2) Order Denying
    Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Non-Parties ER Hulen, LLC, ER Addison, LLC, and
    ERNearMe Plano, LLC’s Responses to Subpoena and Request for Sanctions; and
    (3) Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Duces Tecum
    to MedOps Consulting, LLC and Motion for Protection, and Denying Plaintiffs’
    Motion to Compel MedOps Consulting, LLC’s Discovery Responses. Entitlement
    to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its
    discretion and that relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins.
    Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
    After reviewing the petition, the response, and the record before us, we
    conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused
    its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.
    APP. P. 52.8(a).
    /Bill Pedersen, III//
    BILL PEDERSEN, III
    240950f.p05                                JUSTICE
    –2–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-24-00950-CV

Filed Date: 10/1/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/9/2024