Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 20, 2025
Docket15-25-00092-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas (Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00092-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2025 4:56 PM NO. 15-25-00092-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2025 4:56:35 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk BRIGHT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant,

v.

BRIGHT HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 455th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas Cause No. D-1-GN-23-008361 The Honorable Catherine Mauzy, Presiding

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Carlos R. Soltero csoltero@maynardnexsen.com State Bar No. 00791702 Brytne D. Kitchin bkitchin@maynardnexsen.com State Bar No. 24079973 Lisa Poole Alcantar lalcantar@maynardnexsen.com State Bar No. 24069284 MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 2500 Bee Caves Road Bldg. 1, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746

Attorneys for Appellant

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following is a complete list of all parties before the trial court and the names and addresses of all counsel in the trial court and court of appeals:

1. Appellant:

Bright Health Management, Inc. (Non-Party)

Lead Appellate Counsel

Jane Webre jwebre@scottdoug.com Scott Douglass & McConnico 303 Colorado St., Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 512-495-6300-Telephone

Trial & Appellate Counsel

Carlos R. Soltero csoltero@maynardnexsen.com State Bar No. 00791702 Brytne D. Kitchin bkitchin@maynardnexsen.com State Bar No. 24079973 Lisa Poole Alcantar lalcantar@maynardnexsen.com State Bar No. 24069284 MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 2500 Bee Caves Road Bldg. 1, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78746

i 2. Appellee:

Bright Health Care Insurance Company of Texas (Defendant)

Gregory A. Pierce gpierce@gpiercelaw.com State Bar No. 15994250 P.O. Box 40 Austin, TX 78767 (512) 474-2154 Christopher Fuller cfuller@fullerlaw.org State Bar No. 07515500 FULLER LAW GROUP 4612 Ridge Oak Drive Austin, TX 78731 (512) 470-9544

Attorneys for CANTILO & BENNET, L.L.P., Specialty Deputy Receiver of Bright Health Insurance Company of Texas

3. Other Parties:

Texas Department of Insurance (Plaintiff)

Edwin Hartsfield Vane Hugo John Walker RLO MC-FRD PO Box 12030 Austin, TX 78711-2030

Shawn Martin Sandra Salazar General Counsel Division

ii Office of Financial Counsel PO Box 12030 Austin, TX 78711-2030

Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office of the Texas Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Mail Stop 01901 Austin, TX 78711-2548

iii Texas Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association

Dan Price SHANLEY PRICE 5501A Balcones Drive, Suite 218 Austin, TX 78731

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight

Milan Shah Kelly Drury Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 7501 Wisconsin Ave Bethesda, MD 21814

THC Houston, LLC d/b/a Kindred Hospital Houston Northwest

Adrianne J. Simon Blake Gould Fultz Maddox Dickens PLC 101 South Fifth Street, 27th Floor Louisville, KY 40202

Internal Revenue Service

Internal Revenue Service Special Procedures Branch 300 East 8th Street, Suite 352 Mail Stop 5026AUS Austin, Texas 7870

iv RECORD REFERENCES

“App’x ____” refers to the place where the document is included as part of the Appendix.

“____ CR ____” refers to the Clerk’s Record at the indicated page. The number before “CR” is the volume of the Reporter’s Record since there are four. The number after “CR” is the page in that volume of the Clerk’s Record.

“____ RR ____” refers to the Reporter’s Record. The number before “RR” is the volume of the Reporter’s Record since there are three. The number after “RR” is the page in that volume of the Reporter’s Record. Any further references like page numbers are in that part of the Reporter’s Record at the indicated page.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL............................................... i

RECORD REFERENCES ......................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... vi

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... ix

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................... xiii

ISSUES PRESENTED ........................................................................... xiv

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................... 1

1. The Parties ....................................................................................... 1

2. The Prior Legal Proceedings ............................................................ 4

3. The Dispute ...................................................................................... 5

A. BHM does not dispute the SDR’s entitlement to copies of documents and information belonging or related to BHICOT and in BHM’s possession. ........................................ 5

B. Consistent with industry standards, BHM, through its employees, provides management and administration services to all its insurance company affiliates. ..................... 7

C. The SDR refused BHM’s reasonable requests to confer and identify agreed search terms to facilitate the expeditious and efficient production of the BHICOT Records. ................................................................................... 8

D. The Special Master and District Court erroneously concluded that the SDR is not required to cooperate with BHM and that BHICOT does not have to bear any of the costs of producing the BHICOT Records. ............................. 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................ 12

vi ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 13

A. The fact that the SDR’s request for the BHICOT Records is pursuant to the Texas Insurance Receivership Act does not override the constraints generally applicable to discovery requests made to a non-party in civil litigation. ............................................................................... 13

B. Proportionality and reasonableness are polestars in litigation discovery, including the production of ESI. .......... 16

C. As a non-party to the receivership, Texas discovery jurisprudence provides BHM the right to protect its own interests and documents. ...................................................... 18

D. The fact that BHM digitally stored BHICOT-related documents and information alongside documents and information for BHM’s other clients does not eliminate the applicability of Texas discovery constraints. ................. 20

E. This Court should protect BHM’s right to be free from burdensome and intrusive discovery requests and require the District Court to issue an order applying ESI Protocols to the SDR’s request for the BHICOT Records. ............................................................................................... 24

A. The fact that BHM digitally stored BHICOT-related documents and information alongside documents and information for BHM’s other clients does not relieve BHICOT of its contractual and statutory obligation to reimburse BHM for the cost of identifying and producing the BHICOT Records. ........................................................... 27

B. The MSA requires BHICOT to reimburse BHM for all costs associated with identifying and producing the BHICOT Records. .................................................................. 29

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re: Ford Motor Company
345 F.3d 1315 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Whitcomb v. Chavis
403 U.S. 124 (Supreme Court, 1971)
In Re Dana Corp.
138 S.W.3d 298 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.
295 S.W.3d 309 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re Honza
242 S.W.3d 578 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
In Re University of Texas Health Center at Tyler
198 S.W.3d 392 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Ojeda De Toca v. Wise
748 S.W.2d 449 (Texas Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re CI Host, Inc.
92 S.W.3d 514 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
General Motors Corp. v. Lawrence
651 S.W.2d 732 (Texas Supreme Court, 1983)
Medallion Homes, Inc. v. Thermar Investments, Inc.
698 S.W.2d 400 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.
295 S.W.3d 346 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
In Re American Optical Corp.
988 S.W.2d 711 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ramirez
824 S.W.2d 558 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson
898 S.W.2d 813 (Texas Supreme Court, 1995)
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles
60 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. California, 1999)
in Re Eurecat US, Inc.
425 S.W.3d 577 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bright-health-management-inc-v-texas-department-of-insurance-and-cantilo-texapp-2025.