In Re Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 v. the State of Texas
Opinion
ACCEPTED
15-25-00031-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
4/3/2025 1:22 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
No. 15-25-00031-CV 1 CLERK
In the Court of Appeals 15th AUSTIN, FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS
TEXAS
for the Fifteenth Judicial DistrictCHRISTOPHER 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM
A. PRINE
Austin, Texas Clerk
In re NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 1, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 2, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 3, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 4, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 5, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 6, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 7, AND NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 8, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 9, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 10, AND NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 11, Relators.
On Writ of Mandamus
493rd Judicial District Court, Collin County
STATE’S RESPONSE TO NONPARTY PATIENTS’ SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION TO LIFT STAY
To the Honorable Fifteenth Court of Appeals: 2 Two weeks ago, this Court granted a stay of Judge Christine Nowak’s order for
Childrens’ Hospital to produce redacted medical records pertaining to Relators to Relators’ own counsel and to counsel for the defendant-physicians involved in the
State’s underlying lawsuit (for a small handful of unrepresented non-party patients).
1 This Response also applies to No. 15-25-00032-CV and the State incorporates it therein for all purposes. 2 In light of the emergency posture in which Relators have raised their Motion, this Response has been prepared on an extremely abbreviated timeline. The State apologizes for its imperfect citations and reduced formalities.
The Court granted this stay in an ex parte and emergency posture based on the now disproven—and, at all times, baseless—representations of Relators’ counsel that Childrens’ medical records were commingled between Relators and unrepresented non-party patients. Because these claims have been disproven (with respect to Chil- drens’ Hospital) and because Relators haven’t even alleged that UTSW records have ever been commingled, the Court should deny Relators’ Second Emergency Motion for Stay and lift its original stay with respect Childrens.
I. BACKGROUND
1. On March 20, 2025, Judge Christine Nowak of the 493rd District Court in Collin County granted in part, and denied in part, Relators’ Motion to Stay Produc- tion from Childrens Hospital and UTSW. See Ex. C.
2. With respect to Childrens’ Hospital, Judge Nowak ordered that Childrens was to begin production of “medical, laboratory, billing, and prescription records” from January 1, 2022 to present for the relevant patients relating to “testosterone or puberty blockers.” 3 Ex. E; see also Ex. C.
3 In doing so, the Court recognized the parallel litigation that Relators are pursuing in Dallas County and specifically (and correctly) noted that only some of the non-party patients involved in these lawsuits have ostensibly obtained protection from the State’s subpoenas in the 95th District Court. More specifically, the Court recognized that the 95th District Court had only heard a motion for protection from the non-party patients of Dr. May C. Lau. The 95th District Court had never addressed the subpoenas relating to Dr. Brett Cooper or his associated patients. As such, and at least with respect to Dr. Cooper’s patients, the Court noted “I don’t believe that this Court’s ruling [] conflicts with any order our of the [Dallas County] Cooper case.” Ex. C, p. 128.
3. Notably, the Court’s orders did not contemplate production in the ordinary sense. Rather, the Court’s orders merely directed Childrens’ Hospital to turn-over redacted medical records to the non-party patients’ counsel (for represented pa- tients) and to the defendant-physician’s counsel (for unrepresented patients) so that the respective attorneys could assert privileges on behalf of the patients, mark infor- mation for redactions, and submit the materials for an in camera review. Ex. E.
4. The March 20th orders did not contemplate any production from UTSW.
See Ex. C. Indeed, as Relator’s counsel previously represented to this Court, Judge Nowak’s March 20th orders were clear that “UT Southwestern [would] produce no records.” Dec. of W. Logan In Support of Pet. for Writ of Mandamus (dated 3/20/2025).
5. Immediately following the March 20th hearing, Relators filed two Petitions for Mandamus in this Court, one pertaining to each of the Collin County cases. For each petition, Relators also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
6. In each of these filings, the thrust of Relators’ urgency was Relators’ allega-
tion that Judge Nowak ordered production in spite of evidence that medical records for unrepresented patients were “very likely comingled” with documents related to
Relators and that such production would “seriously jeopardize[] the privileges as- serted by Relators.” Id.; Pet. for Writ of Mandamus, p. 6.
7. On this basis, on March 21st, this Court stayed Judge Nowak’s March 20, 2025 production orders.
8. Thereafter, on March 26, 2025, after an agreement was reached relating to UTSW’s legal representation, Judge Nowak extended her prior orders to UTSW and stated that UTSW’s production obligations would “kick in now.” Ex. D, p. 11.
9. Off-the-record, and in a subsequent email, the Court expressed its intention that—if the Non-Party Patients were going to pursue another petition for manda- mus relating to the UTSW orders—the Court’s intention was to put both appeals on the same timeline and appellate track.
10. In light of UTSW’s counsel’s recent entry into an already convoluted matter, and to account for Relators’ suggestion that they might file another manda- mus, the State agreed to give UTSW a one-week extension, until April 2nd, to begin production and specifically sought clarification as to whether any of UTSW’s medi- cal records were commingled. Ex. A, pp. 1-2.
11. The State also pressed Relators about what they contended might be comingled in the productions. Ex. B, pp. 2-3, 6-8. Relators responded that they be- lieved “emails” and “visit logs” might be comingled in the records. Id. at p. 2.
12. For its part, Childrens confirmed that it did not understand these ma-
terials to be the subject of Judge Nowak’s orders and that Childrens was not planning to produce these materials. Id., p. 1.
13. Notably, in light of the above-mentioned discussions and the State’s agreed extension, Relators did not seek a stay of the Court’s UTSW orders during the one-week extension—and even now, in this Second Emergency Motion for Stay—have not alleged that UTSW’s records are commingled.
14. On April 2, 2025, UTSW inadvertently issued production to the State.
Within hours of that production, the State confirmed that it would destroy any cop- ies that it had received. Thereafter, Relators filed this Second Emergency Motion to Stay.
II. ARGUMENT
a. Unlike The Prior (Now Disproven) Claim that Childrens’ Production “Very Likely” Included Comingled Records, Relators Have Made No Such Allegation With Respect to UTSW.
15. Relators misrepresented the record to this Court when they sought, and obtained, an emergency stay of Judge Nowak’s March 20, 2025 orders. Relators Pe- tition for Mandamus very plainly suggested to this Court that Judge Nowak ordered production from Childrens’ in spite of evidence that medical records were comingled. See Pet. for Mandamus, p. 6 (citing to the then-forthcoming 3/20/2025
transcript); see also Second Emergency Mot. to Stay, p. 2 (“Childrens had to produce records… even though those records may commingle Relators’ information with the unrepresented patients’”). As the record now very clearly demonstrates, however, there has never been any evidence whatsoever of comingling. The only mention of comingling has come from Relators’ own counsel, who continues to parrot the same unsubstantiated belief that records are comingled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ACCEPTED
15-25-00031-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
4/3/2025 1:22 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
No. 15-25-00031-CV 1 CLERK
In the Court of Appeals 15th AUSTIN, FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS
TEXAS
for the Fifteenth Judicial DistrictCHRISTOPHER 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM
A. PRINE
Austin, Texas Clerk
In re NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 1, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 2, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 3, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 4, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 5, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 6, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 7, AND NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 8, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 9, NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 10, AND NONPARTY PATIENT NO. 11, Relators.
On Writ of Mandamus
493rd Judicial District Court, Collin County
STATE’S RESPONSE TO NONPARTY PATIENTS’ SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION TO LIFT STAY
To the Honorable Fifteenth Court of Appeals: 2 Two weeks ago, this Court granted a stay of Judge Christine Nowak’s order for
Childrens’ Hospital to produce redacted medical records pertaining to Relators to Relators’ own counsel and to counsel for the defendant-physicians involved in the
State’s underlying lawsuit (for a small handful of unrepresented non-party patients).
1 This Response also applies to No. 15-25-00032-CV and the State incorporates it therein for all purposes. 2 In light of the emergency posture in which Relators have raised their Motion, this Response has been prepared on an extremely abbreviated timeline. The State apologizes for its imperfect citations and reduced formalities.
The Court granted this stay in an ex parte and emergency posture based on the now disproven—and, at all times, baseless—representations of Relators’ counsel that Childrens’ medical records were commingled between Relators and unrepresented non-party patients. Because these claims have been disproven (with respect to Chil- drens’ Hospital) and because Relators haven’t even alleged that UTSW records have ever been commingled, the Court should deny Relators’ Second Emergency Motion for Stay and lift its original stay with respect Childrens.
I. BACKGROUND
1. On March 20, 2025, Judge Christine Nowak of the 493rd District Court in Collin County granted in part, and denied in part, Relators’ Motion to Stay Produc- tion from Childrens Hospital and UTSW. See Ex. C.
2. With respect to Childrens’ Hospital, Judge Nowak ordered that Childrens was to begin production of “medical, laboratory, billing, and prescription records” from January 1, 2022 to present for the relevant patients relating to “testosterone or puberty blockers.” 3 Ex. E; see also Ex. C.
3 In doing so, the Court recognized the parallel litigation that Relators are pursuing in Dallas County and specifically (and correctly) noted that only some of the non-party patients involved in these lawsuits have ostensibly obtained protection from the State’s subpoenas in the 95th District Court. More specifically, the Court recognized that the 95th District Court had only heard a motion for protection from the non-party patients of Dr. May C. Lau. The 95th District Court had never addressed the subpoenas relating to Dr. Brett Cooper or his associated patients. As such, and at least with respect to Dr. Cooper’s patients, the Court noted “I don’t believe that this Court’s ruling [] conflicts with any order our of the [Dallas County] Cooper case.” Ex. C, p. 128.
3. Notably, the Court’s orders did not contemplate production in the ordinary sense. Rather, the Court’s orders merely directed Childrens’ Hospital to turn-over redacted medical records to the non-party patients’ counsel (for represented pa- tients) and to the defendant-physician’s counsel (for unrepresented patients) so that the respective attorneys could assert privileges on behalf of the patients, mark infor- mation for redactions, and submit the materials for an in camera review. Ex. E.
4. The March 20th orders did not contemplate any production from UTSW.
See Ex. C. Indeed, as Relator’s counsel previously represented to this Court, Judge Nowak’s March 20th orders were clear that “UT Southwestern [would] produce no records.” Dec. of W. Logan In Support of Pet. for Writ of Mandamus (dated 3/20/2025).
5. Immediately following the March 20th hearing, Relators filed two Petitions for Mandamus in this Court, one pertaining to each of the Collin County cases. For each petition, Relators also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
6. In each of these filings, the thrust of Relators’ urgency was Relators’ allega-
tion that Judge Nowak ordered production in spite of evidence that medical records for unrepresented patients were “very likely comingled” with documents related to
Relators and that such production would “seriously jeopardize[] the privileges as- serted by Relators.” Id.; Pet. for Writ of Mandamus, p. 6.
7. On this basis, on March 21st, this Court stayed Judge Nowak’s March 20, 2025 production orders.
8. Thereafter, on March 26, 2025, after an agreement was reached relating to UTSW’s legal representation, Judge Nowak extended her prior orders to UTSW and stated that UTSW’s production obligations would “kick in now.” Ex. D, p. 11.
9. Off-the-record, and in a subsequent email, the Court expressed its intention that—if the Non-Party Patients were going to pursue another petition for manda- mus relating to the UTSW orders—the Court’s intention was to put both appeals on the same timeline and appellate track.
10. In light of UTSW’s counsel’s recent entry into an already convoluted matter, and to account for Relators’ suggestion that they might file another manda- mus, the State agreed to give UTSW a one-week extension, until April 2nd, to begin production and specifically sought clarification as to whether any of UTSW’s medi- cal records were commingled. Ex. A, pp. 1-2.
11. The State also pressed Relators about what they contended might be comingled in the productions. Ex. B, pp. 2-3, 6-8. Relators responded that they be- lieved “emails” and “visit logs” might be comingled in the records. Id. at p. 2.
12. For its part, Childrens confirmed that it did not understand these ma-
terials to be the subject of Judge Nowak’s orders and that Childrens was not planning to produce these materials. Id., p. 1.
13. Notably, in light of the above-mentioned discussions and the State’s agreed extension, Relators did not seek a stay of the Court’s UTSW orders during the one-week extension—and even now, in this Second Emergency Motion for Stay—have not alleged that UTSW’s records are commingled.
14. On April 2, 2025, UTSW inadvertently issued production to the State.
Within hours of that production, the State confirmed that it would destroy any cop- ies that it had received. Thereafter, Relators filed this Second Emergency Motion to Stay.
II. ARGUMENT
a. Unlike The Prior (Now Disproven) Claim that Childrens’ Production “Very Likely” Included Comingled Records, Relators Have Made No Such Allegation With Respect to UTSW.
15. Relators misrepresented the record to this Court when they sought, and obtained, an emergency stay of Judge Nowak’s March 20, 2025 orders. Relators Pe- tition for Mandamus very plainly suggested to this Court that Judge Nowak ordered production from Childrens’ in spite of evidence that medical records were comingled. See Pet. for Mandamus, p. 6 (citing to the then-forthcoming 3/20/2025
transcript); see also Second Emergency Mot. to Stay, p. 2 (“Childrens had to produce records… even though those records may commingle Relators’ information with the unrepresented patients’”). As the record now very clearly demonstrates, however, there has never been any evidence whatsoever of comingling. The only mention of comingling has come from Relators’ own counsel, who continues to parrot the same unsubstantiated belief that records are comingled.
16. But that is not the end. When the State finally had an opportunity to press Relator’s counsel about the ‘comingling’ allegation (after Relators’ had al- ready obtained emergency ex parte relief from this Court) Relators’ counsel surren- dered to the reality that his allegation did not even pertain to the “medical, labora- tory, billing, and prescription records” for care and treatment “relating to testos- terone or puberty blockers” that Judge Nowak ordered to be produced. Rather, Re- lators allegation of comingling was apparently limited to different records—visit logs and emails— that Judge Nowak hadn’t even yet ordered to be produced.
17. While it might not be initially apparent to this Court, the frivolity and obfuscation of Relators in this respect cannot be lost. The parties, non-parties, and Judge Nowak all knew exactly what Judge Nowak ordered to be produced and “visit logs” and “emails” were not among the contemplated production. Indeed, the par- ties, non-parties, and Judge Nowak have spent literal days at this point deliberating
the discrete categories of records at issue in this case. To this end, when Judge Nowak granted, in part, Relator’s Motion to Stay production, she specifically limited the production to records pertaining to “testosterone or puberty blockers,” thus re- moving any generic “visit logs” from the production. See Ex. C, p. 128; see also Ex. E. All of this is further confirmed by the fact that the State, Childrens, and apparently UTSW, all agree that “emails” and “visit logs” were never among the contemplated production ordered by Judge Nowak. See Ex. B, p. 1.
18. To this end, the fact that Relators refrained from making a ‘comingling’
allegation in this Second Emergency Motion for Stay with respect to UTSW is an unmistakable capitulation and demonstration of the distress of their prior position.
19. In light of Childrens’ confirmation that the emails and visit logs alleged to be “very likely comingled” are not even a part of the production—and the absence of any similar allegation relating to UTSW records—the Court should lift its prior stay of Judge Nowak’s March 20th orders and deny Relator’s Second Emergency Motion for Stay.
b. Judge Nowak Did Not Order Production from UTSW Until After This Court’s March 21st Order.
20. Relators’ new claim that their prior Petition for Mandamus and Emer-
gency Motion for Stay related to both Childrens and UTSW is belied by their own prior filings. As Relator’s counsel previously represented to this Court, Judge
Nowak’s March 20th orders were clear that “UT Southwestern [would] produce no records.” Dec. of W. Logan In Support of Pet. for Writ of Mandamus (dated 3/20/2025).
21. Judge Nowak’s March 20th statements also make clear that her orders solely related to Childrens. Judge Nowak specifically stated that she was “tabl[ing]” UTSW’s production until such time as its counsel was resolved and it could re-assert its motion for protection. Ex. C, p. 100
22. In light of the foregoing, and the fact that Judge Nowak did not order production from UTSW until March 26th, this Court could not have granted emer- gency relief pertaining to UTSW because the trial court had not even ordered such production at that time.
c. Judge Nowak Did Not Contravene This Court’s Orders, But Merely Gave Relators An Opportunity to File a Second Mandamus and Consolidate the Appeals.
23. Relators misconstrue the email from Judge Nowak’s Court Coordina-
tor, Ms. Patterson, and this Court should not read words into that email that do not exist. Contrary to Relators’ position, Judge Nowak did not order new production in spite of this Court’s stay. Rather, Judge Nowak’s expressed intent was that—if Re- lators were going to seek appellate review of her UTSW production orders— Relators could present such arguments to this Court in a consolidated manner.
24. But Relators did not do this. Despite the State’s agreement to a one-
week extension before UTSW began production under the Court’s March 26th or- ders, Relators never sought appellate review of those orders. And for good reason: their ‘commingling’ allegation had shattered.
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully prays that this Honorable Court
deny Relators’ Second Emergency Motion to Stay, lift the prior stay of production that it entered on March 21st, and for all other relief to which the State may be enti-
tled.
Respectfully submitted.
Ken Paxton /s/ Rob Farquharson ROB FARQUHARSON
Attorney General of Texas Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 24100550
Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General Abigail E. Smith
Johnathan Stone Assistant Attorney General Chief, Consumer Protection Division State Bar No. 24141756 State Bar No. 24071779 Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711
Tel: (214) 290-8830
Fax: (214) 969-7615
Counsel for the State
Exhibit A
Rob Farquharson
From: Rob Farquharson Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 5:28 PM To: Patrick Todd; Sutker, Cory; Holland, Anika; Logan, William; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper;
'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com'; David Shatto; Kimberly Gdula; Brianna Krominga; Cooper, Jackie; 'awolf@steptoe.com'; Newsome, Jervonne D.; Martin Cohick; 'Legg, W. Henry'; Jeff Lutz Cc: Johnathan Stone; Pauline Sisson; Emily Samuels; Abby Smith; Amy Pletscher; nonparty-patientcounsel
Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
We can agree to a one-week suspension of your obligation to produce the documents, but would ask that you confirm the segregation/commingling issue as expediently as possible, so as to help all parties avoid the need for additional appellate proceedings.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 5:24 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Hi Rob,
We can’t yet confirm one way or the other about whether they are segregated or commingled without first reviewing them. (Hence why we are asking for a one week extension.) Believe me, there is nobody more interested to know this answer than I.
Best, Patrick
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:57 PM To: Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William
<WLogan@winston.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Mr. Todd:
I am sympathetic to your position, but I hope you can understand ours too. The Court made its order this morning fully aware of the fact that you had just entered into the case. On top of that, we have been seeking these records for more than two months and have already given UTSW extensions to comply.
With all of this said, Mr. Logan has suggested that he may be planning to file a mandamus based on his belief that UTSW patient records are somehow comingled amongst themselves. We are not aware of any basis for this claim, and indeed, if he is correct, UTSW may have bigger problems in terms of HIPAA.
If we agree to an extension, as an initial matter, can you confirm with your client and/or its former counsel whether UTSW’s relevant patient records are either segregated by patient or commingled?
With this information, we may be able to work something out. All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:35 PM To: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I am not sure Children’s has a say in this, but, to the extent it matters, we have no opposition
Cory Sutker
900 Jackson St. #100, Dallas, TX 75202 Direct: 214.712.9558 | Main: 214.712.9500 | Fax: 214.712.9540 Email: Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com | www.cooperscully.com .
This correspondence is for the named persons' use only, and it contains confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. .
From: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:30:24 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Agreed (on behalf of Dr. Cooper).
Anika Holland Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104 Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599 aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:29 PM To: Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher
<Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
For our part, we believe giving UTSW's counsel a week to get up to speed on the case before it decides how to proceed is appropriate and more than reasonable.
From: Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:09:16 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Dear Counsel,
We (Martin and myself) were assigned to represent UTSW this morning. We were not afforded the opportunity to be at the hearing this morning and are still trying to get up to speed on what has happened so far in this case. We haven’t been able to confer with our client yet or former counsel. We have also not been able to review the responsive records. As such, we cannot approve as to form the proposed order since we don’t know what the court ordered at the hearing today.
We respectfully ask if the parties will agree to a one week delay to April 2, 2025, before UTSW is required to begin producing records to allow us to confer with our client, confer with former counsel, and review the records.
We would graciously appreciate extending us this professional courtesy. Sincerely, Patrick Todd
Patrick Todd
Assistant Attorney General, Administrative Law Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 936-1660
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:31 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Mr Walsh said so during one of our many conferences about productions in this matter.
While we're confirming things, can you please confirm service of all the unrepresented patients as required under Rule 205?
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:29:12 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I do not recall Mr. Walsh (or even Mr. Sutker) saying that. Was it something he said in court?
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:27 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels
<Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Rob,
We're not going to relitigate the bases for our petition and moving to stay via email, but to be clear, our clients' records were ordered produced beginning on March 21. As to whether UTSW may have co-mingled documents, UTSW's prior counsel, David Walsh, confirmed it was possible co-mingled records exist. We believe resolving the extent of such records, and how they should be dealt with, are questions in the first instance for the Dallas County Court.
Thanks, William
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:19:17 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
William:
My understanding of your emergency 15 COA filing (and its order, which was based purely on your allegations) was that the basis of your urgency was your allegation that Childrens’ patient records are somehow comingled amongst themselves. Do you have a basis to claim that the same applies to UTSW’s records?
The Court had already ordered these to be prepared and ready for production on 3/21. All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:10 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com'
<avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Counsel for UTSW:
Would you please advise on your position regarding the draft proposed orders and the Court's oral order today? Does UTSW intend to begin producing documents despite the stay from the 15th Court of Appeals? We need to know so we can decide whether to seek further relief from that Court.
Thanks, William
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:46:15 PM To: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
They are on the chain: Patrick Todd and Martin Cohick.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:44 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>
Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Rob—it doesn’t look like UTSW’s new counsel is on this thread either. Shouldn’t they be a part of this conversation given that UTSW is the subject of this order? Or did you already get their agreement separately?
Anika Holland Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104 Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599 aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 11:26 AM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Rob, thank you for agreeing to add counsel for Dr. Lau. We should also confer on the Court’s request for a position regarding whether the April 16 hearing should go forward. Given the stay from the 15th Court of Appeals, the Nonparty Patients’ position is that it should be vacated.
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:23 PM To: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>;
WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
No problem. But, to clarify, Mr. Wolf represents Dr. Lau and has been on all of the emails.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:15 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I am adding Dr. Lau’s counsel to this thread. They were omitted earlier.
Anika Holland Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104 Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599 aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 11:14 AM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie'
<Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Sure. Please let us know by 2pm if there are any comments from Dr. Lau or Dr. Cooper’s counsel.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:11 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I believe we should give the other parties and nonparties an opportunity to weigh in before we send anything else to the Court.
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:09 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie'
<Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
If I missed them, I apologize, there was nobody other than Childrens’ counsel, Dr. Lau’s counsel, and myself in the courtroom. And the only folks on Zoom were two attorneys for Dr. Cooper and Mr. Shatto. The Court also asked if anybody was present for the Non-Party Patients and nobody said anything.
I don’t believe that this captures the Court’s oral orders, but I will include it in my email to the Court and note our disagreement.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:57 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Thanks Rob. Setting aside that none of these issues were noticed for the hearing this morning, we had an attorney present. Sorry we missed you. Proposed edits attached. Are there any different thoughts from the doctors’ counsel or counsel for UTSW?
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:48 PM
To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
My only objective with the written order is to capture what the Court already orally ordered this morning. I understand that you are likely not in agreement with the substance of the Court’s order, but the question is only as to the form.
The Court opened the hearing for counsel to attend via Zoom, but you did not appear. Given that you were not present to hear the Court’s orders, I find it difficult to understand what form objections you might have. Nevertheless, with that said, if you have suggested revisions to the form of the order, please send them.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:39 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Hi Rob,
It is not agreed. If we understand the order the Court is suggesting, it is that the agreed stay of productions for UTSW under the February 28 order (as modified on March 20) is lifted. It should not be written as a new order for production to UTSW.
Many thanks, William
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600
D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:36 PM To: 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
All: Please let me know if this order is agreed as to form. All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Rob Farquharson Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:34 PM To: 'Amy Patterson' <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
We have not discussed that. I will drop you off and open the floor.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Amy Patterson <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:26 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Can you confirm, is this agreed as to form?
Thank you, Amy Patterson Court Coordinator, 493rd District Court Ph#214-491-4870
You MUST appear for your hearings unless the Court tells you otherwise. Please send all scheduling request to 493@co.collin.tx.us for a faster response time.
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:13 PM To: Amy Patterson <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
***** WARNING: External Email. Do not click links or open attachments that are unsafe. *****
Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Attached is the proposed order that the Court requested this morning. We will also be submitting it through e-file shortly.
All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Amy Patterson <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 10:18 AM To: 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Subject: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024 Importance: High
All – At today’s sealing hearings, the Court broached in open Court the execution of the Agreed Order related to the representation of UTSW. The Court believes this resolves/moots a number of pending motions in this cause including Rule 12, Motion to Strike Intervention, etc. To keep the record clean, Judge Nowak would prefer an order memorializing this fact. As such, the Court directs the Parties/Non Parties to provide an Agreed Order memorializing the motions impacted and confirming the same are rendered moot by the Agreed Order.
In addition, we have not received from the Parties/Non Parties a proposed Order reflecting the Court’s ruling on the Nonparty Patients Expedited Motion for Partial Stay, which was granted in part and denied in part. It seems likely the Parties/NonParties would desire a written order given the proceedings pending in the 15th Court. Do the Parties/NonParties anticipate providing one for the Court to sign which may be sent to the 15th Court of Appeals in connection with the mandamus proceeding?
Further, in light of Agreed Order stay of production by UTSW is lifted and the Court believes that UTSW, like Children’s, would be subject to the Feb. 28 Order, as modified. The Court noted this at hearing today so that the Parties/NonParties may determine whether any additional steps are needed to ensure that you are pursuing one proceeding with the 15th Court of Appeals, instead of two, related to production issues. Please let us know if you need anything further from the Court to most efficiently move the proceedings with the 15th Court forward.
Lastly, at present, we have a hearing scheduled in these causes on April 16. Do the Parties/NonParties agree as to whether that hearing may proceed pending the 15th Court proceedings? Please advise.
Thank you, Amy Patterson Court Coordinator, 493rd District Court
Ph#214-491-4870
You MUST appear for your hearings unless the Court tells you otherwise. Please send all scheduling request to 493@co.collin.tx.us for a faster response time.
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
Exhibit B
Rob Farquharson
From: Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 2:25 PM To: Rob Farquharson Cc: Johnathan Stone; David Shatto; Pauline Sisson; Emily Samuels Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Rob –
I have confirmed that Children’s does not have any visit logs. Further, I did not understand the Court’s order from last Friday to require the production of emails. With respect to emails, the only order was for Children’s and the State to meet and confer over search terms.
Cory Sutker
900 Jackson St. #100, Dallas, TX 75202 Direct: 214.712.9558 | Main: 214.712.9500 | Fax: 214.712.9540 Email: Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com | www.cooperscully.com .
This correspondence is for the named persons' use only, and it contains confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. .
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 9:59 AM To: Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov> Subject: FW: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Cory:
Just so I am clear on your end, I don’t read the Court’s orders to include visit logs or emails. Are these items that you are planning to produce pursuant to the Collin County Court’s orders?
All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 5:04 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Hi Patrick,
For clarification, when Rob mentions co-mingled records, he is referring to Mr. Walsh’s prior confirmation that there are possibly some records (like visit logs) that may contain references to multiple patients. We also understand there could be electronic records, like emails, that might reference more than one patient. We have no reason to believe that the existence of records that reference multiple patients would be a HIPAA violation. Nonetheless, if your client confirms that there is a possibility that such records exist, it is obviously extraordinarily important to our clients. The dispute over that is already pending as part of the Nonparty Patients’ requests for protection in the Dallas County Court and should be adjudicated there.
Thanks, William
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:57 PM To: Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Mr. Todd:
I am sympathetic to your position, but I hope you can understand ours too. The Court made its order this morning fully aware of the fact that you had just entered into the case. On top of that, we have been seeking these records for more than two months and have already given UTSW extensions to comply.
With all of this said, Mr. Logan has suggested that he may be planning to file a mandamus based on his belief that UTSW patient records are somehow comingled amongst themselves. We are not aware of any basis for this claim, and indeed, if he is correct, UTSW may have bigger problems in terms of HIPAA.
If we agree to an extension, as an initial matter, can you confirm with your client and/or its former counsel whether UTSW’s relevant patient records are either segregated by patient or commingled?
With this information, we may be able to work something out. All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:35 PM To: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I am not sure Children’s has a say in this, but, to the extent it matters, we have no opposition
Cory Sutker
900 Jackson St. #100, Dallas, TX 75202 Direct: 214.712.9558 | Main: 214.712.9500 | Fax: 214.712.9540 Email: Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com | www.cooperscully.com .
This correspondence is for the named persons' use only, and it contains confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. .
From: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:30:24 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; Sutker, Cory <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; Cooper, Jackie <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Agreed (on behalf of Dr. Cooper).
Anika Holland Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104 Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599 aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:29 PM To: Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
For our part, we believe giving UTSW's counsel a week to get up to speed on the case before it decides how to proceed is appropriate and more than reasonable.
From: Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:09:16 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika
<AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com>; Jeff Lutz <Jeff.Lutz@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Dear Counsel,
We (Martin and myself) were assigned to represent UTSW this morning. We were not afforded the opportunity to be at the hearing this morning and are still trying to get up to speed on what has happened so far in this case. We haven’t been able to confer with our client yet or former counsel. We have also not been able to review the responsive records. As such, we cannot approve as to form the proposed order since we don’t know what the court ordered at the hearing today.
We respectfully ask if the parties will agree to a one week delay to April 2, 2025, before UTSW is required to begin producing records to allow us to confer with our client, confer with former counsel, and review the records.
We would graciously appreciate extending us this professional courtesy. Sincerely, Patrick Todd
Patrick Todd
Assistant Attorney General, Administrative Law Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 936-1660
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:31 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher
<Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Mr Walsh said so during one of our many conferences about productions in this matter.
While we're confirming things, can you please confirm service of all the unrepresented patients as required under Rule 205?
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:29:12 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I do not recall Mr. Walsh (or even Mr. Sutker) saying that. Was it something he said in court?
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:27 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Rob,
We're not going to relitigate the bases for our petition and moving to stay via email, but to be clear, our clients' records were ordered produced beginning on March 21. As to whether UTSW may have co-mingled documents, UTSW's prior counsel, David Walsh, confirmed it was possible co-mingled records exist. We believe resolving the extent of such records, and how they should be dealt with, are questions in the first instance for the Dallas County Court.
Thanks, William
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:19:17 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
William:
My understanding of your emergency 15 COA filing (and its order, which was based purely on your allegations) was that the basis of your urgency was your allegation that Childrens’ patient records are somehow comingled amongst themselves. Do you have a basis to claim that the same applies to UTSW’s records?
The Court had already ordered these to be prepared and ready for production on 3/21. All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:10 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: Re: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Counsel for UTSW:
Would you please advise on your position regarding the draft proposed orders and the Court's oral order today? Does UTSW intend to begin producing documents despite the stay from the 15th Court of Appeals? We need to know so we can decide whether to seek further relief from that Court.
Thanks, William
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:46:15 PM To: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com <Jlascano@steptoe.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
They are on the chain: Patrick Todd and Martin Cohick.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:44 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Rob—it doesn’t look like UTSW’s new counsel is on this thread either. Shouldn’t they be a part of this conversation given that UTSW is the subject of this order? Or did you already get their agreement separately?
Anika Holland
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104 Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599 aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 11:26 AM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Rob, thank you for agreeing to add counsel for Dr. Lau. We should also confer on the Court’s request for a position regarding whether the April 16 hearing should go forward. Given the stay from the 15th Court of Appeals, the Nonparty Patients’ position is that it should be vacated.
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:23 PM To: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
No problem. But, to clarify, Mr. Wolf represents Dr. Lau and has been on all of the emails.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Holland, Anika <AHolland@willkie.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:15 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; Jlascano@steptoe.com; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov>; 'Legg, W. Henry' <wlegg@steptoe.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I am adding Dr. Lau’s counsel to this thread. They were omitted earlier.
Anika Holland Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104 Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599 aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio Pronouns: she, her, hers
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 11:14 AM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; WFG_DrCooper <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Sure. Please let us know by 2pm if there are any comments from Dr. Lau or Dr. Cooper’s counsel.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:11 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
I believe we should give the other parties and nonparties an opportunity to weigh in before we send anything else to the Court.
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 1:09 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
If I missed them, I apologize, there was nobody other than Childrens’ counsel, Dr. Lau’s counsel, and myself in the courtroom. And the only folks on Zoom were two attorneys for Dr. Cooper and Mr. Shatto. The Court also asked if anybody was present for the Non-Party Patients and nobody said anything.
I don’t believe that this captures the Court’s oral orders, but I will include it in my email to the Court and note our disagreement.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:57 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov>; nonparty-patient-counsel <nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Thanks Rob. Setting aside that none of these issues were noticed for the hearing this morning, we had an attorney present. Sorry we missed you. Proposed edits attached. Are there any different thoughts from the doctors’ counsel or counsel for UTSW?
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:48 PM To: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher
<Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
My only objective with the written order is to capture what the Court already orally ordered this morning. I understand that you are likely not in agreement with the substance of the Court’s order, but the question is only as to the form.
The Court opened the hearing for counsel to attend via Zoom, but you did not appear. Given that you were not present to hear the Court’s orders, I find it difficult to understand what form objections you might have. Nevertheless, with that said, if you have suggested revisions to the form of the order, please send them.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:39 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Hi Rob,
It is not agreed. If we understand the order the Court is suggesting, it is that the agreed stay of productions for UTSW under the February 28 order (as modified on March 20) is lifted. It should not be written as a new order for production to UTSW.
Many thanks, William
William Logan Associate Attorney Winston & Strawn LLP T: +1 713-651-2600 D: +1 713-651-2766 F: +1 713-651-2700 Email | winston.com Pronouns: He, Him, His
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:36 PM
To: 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; Newsome, Jervonne D. <JNewsome@winston.com>; Logan, William <WLogan@winston.com>; Martin Cohick <Martin.Cohick@oag.texas.gov>; Patrick Todd <Patrick.Todd@oag.texas.gov> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
All: Please let me know if this order is agreed as to form. All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Rob Farquharson Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:34 PM To: 'Amy Patterson' <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
We have not discussed that. I will drop you off and open the floor.
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Amy Patterson <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:26 PM To: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David
Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
Can you confirm, is this agreed as to form?
Thank you, Amy Patterson Court Coordinator, 493rd District Court Ph#214-491-4870
You MUST appear for your hearings unless the Court tells you otherwise. Please send all scheduling request to 493@co.collin.tx.us for a faster response time.
From: Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:13 PM To: Amy Patterson <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us>; 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Cc: Johnathan Stone <Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov>; Pauline Sisson <Pauline.Sisson@oag.texas.gov>; Emily Samuels <Emily.Samuels@oag.texas.gov>; Abby Smith <Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov>; Amy Pletscher <Amy.Pletscher@oag.texas.gov> Subject: RE: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024
***** WARNING: External Email. Do not click links or open attachments that are unsafe. *****
Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Attached is the proposed order that the Court requested this morning. We will also be submitting it through e-file shortly.
All the best, Rob
Rob Farquharson
Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
From: Amy Patterson <apatterson@co.collin.tx.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 10:18 AM To: 'WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com' <WFG_DrCooper@willkie.com>; 'avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com' <avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com>; Rob Farquharson <Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov>; David Shatto <David.Shatto@oag.texas.gov>; Kimberly Gdula <Kimberly.Gdula@oag.texas.gov>; Brianna Krominga <Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov>; 'Sutker, Cory' <Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'awolf@steptoe.com' <awolf@steptoe.com>; 'Cooper, Jackie' <Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com>; 'Newsome, Jervonne D.' <JNewsome@winston.com>; 'Logan, William' <WLogan@winston.com>; 'dwalsh@katxlaw.com' <dwalsh@katxlaw.com> Subject: 493-07676-2024 & 493-08026-2024 Importance: High
All – At today’s sealing hearings, the Court broached in open Court the execution of the Agreed Order related to the representation of UTSW. The Court believes this resolves/moots a number of pending motions in this cause including Rule 12, Motion to Strike Intervention, etc. To keep the record clean, Judge Nowak would prefer an order memorializing this fact. As such, the Court directs the Parties/Non Parties to provide an Agreed Order memorializing the motions impacted and confirming the same are rendered moot by the Agreed Order.
In addition, we have not received from the Parties/Non Parties a proposed Order reflecting the Court’s ruling on the Nonparty Patients Expedited Motion for Partial Stay, which was granted in part and denied in part. It seems likely the Parties/NonParties would desire a written order given the proceedings pending in the 15th Court. Do the Parties/NonParties anticipate providing one for the Court to sign which may be sent to the 15th Court of Appeals in connection with the mandamus proceeding?
Further, in light of Agreed Order stay of production by UTSW is lifted and the Court believes that UTSW, like Children’s, would be subject to the Feb. 28 Order, as modified. The Court noted this at hearing today so that the Parties/NonParties may determine whether any additional steps are needed to ensure that you are pursuing one proceeding with the 15th Court of Appeals, instead of two, related to production issues. Please let us know if you need anything further from the Court to most efficiently move the proceedings with the 15th Court forward.
Lastly, at present, we have a hearing scheduled in these causes on April 16. Do the Parties/NonParties agree as to whether that hearing may proceed pending the 15th Court proceedings? Please advise.
Thank you, Amy Patterson Court Coordinator, 493rd District Court Ph#214-491-4870
You MUST appear for your hearings unless the Court tells you otherwise. Please send all scheduling request to 493@co.collin.tx.us for a faster response time.
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
Exhibit C
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 493-07676-2024 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 493-08026-2024 3
4 THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §
5 § Plaintiff, §
6 § VS. § 7 § 493RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT §
8 MAY C. LAU, M.D., § §
9 § Defendant. § COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS 10
11 THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 12 § §
13 Plaintiff, § §
14 VS. § § 493RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15 § M. BRETT COOPER, M.D., § 16 § §
17 Defendant. § COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
18 19 ********************* 20 MOTION HEARING 21 *********************
22 On the 20th day of March, 2025, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled 23 and numbered cause before the Honorable Christine Nowak, Judge presiding, held in McKinney, Collin County, Texas;
24 Proceedings reported by machine shorthand.
1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE STATE OF TEXAS:
3 MR. JOHNATHAN STONE (VIA ZOOM)
4 SBOT: #24071779 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 5 PO Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 6 Phone: 512-936-2613 Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov 7 MR. DAVID SHATTO 8 SBOT: #24104114 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 9 PO Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 10 Phone: 512-936-2613 David.shatto@oag.texas.gov 11 MR. ROBERT FARQUHARSON 12 SBOT: #24100550 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13 PO Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 14 Phone: 512-936-2613 David.shatto@oag.texas.gov 15
16 FOR THE DEFENDANT, MAY C. LAU, M.D.:
17 MR. W. HENRY LEGG SBOT: #24116661 18 STEPTOE, LLP 717 Texas Street 19 Suite 2800 Houston, Texas 77002 20 Phone: 713-221-2372 Wlegg@steptoe.com 21 MS. NICOLE LEBOEUF 22 SBOT: #00791091 LEBOEUF LAW, PLLC 23 325 North Saint Paul Street Suite 3400 24 Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone: 214-626-9803 25 Nicole@leboeuflaw.com
1 FOR THE DEFENDANT, M. BRETT COOPER, M.D.:
2 MS. ANIKA HOLLAND (VIA ZOOM)
3 CA Bar#336071 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP 4 333 Bush Street Floor 34 5 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: 415-858-7411 6 Aholland@willkie.com
7 MR. AVI MOSHENBERG (VIA ZOOM)
8 SBOT: #24083532 810 Travis Street 9 Suite 2102 #838 Houston, Texas 77002 10 Phone: 832-280-5670 Avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com 11
12 FOR THE NONPARTY PATIENTS:
13 MR. WILLIAM LOGAN SBOT: #24106214 14 WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 800 Capitol Street 15 Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 16 713-651-2766 Wlogan@winston.com 17 MR. THANH D. NGUYEN 18 SBOT: #24126931 WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 19 800 Capitol Street Suite 2400 20 Houston, Texas 77002 713-651-2766 21 TNguyen@winston.com
22 MR. EVAN LEWIS SBOT: #24116670 23 WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 800 Capitol Street 24 Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 25 713-651-2766 Edlewis@winston.com
1 FOR THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH NONPARTY PATIENTS:
2 MR. CORY M. SUTKER (VIA ZOOM)
3 SBOT: #24037569 COOPER & SCULLY, PC 4 900 Jackson Street Suite 100 5 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-712-9500 6 Cory.sutker@cooperscully.com
7 FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER:
8 MR. DAVID WALSH 9 SBOT: #00791847 KERSHAW ANDERSON, PLLC 10 12400 Coit Road Suite 800 11 Dallas, Texas 75251 214-347-4993 12 Dwalsh@katxlaw.com
13 MR. PETER ANDERSON SBOT: #00793262 14 KERSHAW ANDERSON, PLLC 12400 Coit Road 15 Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75251 16 214-347-4993 Panderson@katxlaw.com 17
18 FOR THE INTERVENOR, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
19 MS. BRIANNA KROMINGA SBOT: #24103252 20 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12221 Merit Drive 21 Suite 650 Dallas, Texas 75251 22 Phone: 214-290-8830 Brianna.Krominga@oag.texas.gov
1 I N D E X 2 (MOTION HEARING) 3 3/20/25 Page Vol 4 Appearances.................................... 2 5 Proceedings................................... 6 6 Court's Ruling................................ 128 7 Reporter's Certificate........................ 141
1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: At this time the Court calls 3 Cause Number 493-07676-2024. This is the State of Texas 4 versus Lau. As well, the Court calls 493-07676-2024 -- 5 oh, gosh, I just read the same number. So sorry. It's 6 06026-2024, State of Texas versus Cooper. If I could 7 have an appearance at this time on behalf of the State 8 of Texas. 9 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, you have Rob 10 Farquharson, David Shatto, and Johnathan Stone for the 11 State. 12 THE COURT: Thank you. And appearance on 13 behalf of Dr. Lau. 14 MR. LEGG: Henry Legg on behalf of Dr. Lau. 15 MS. LEBOEUF: Nicole LeBeouf. 16 THE COURT: Thank you. And appearance on 17 behalf of Dr. Cooper. 18 MS. HOLLAND: Anika Holland on behalf of 19 Dr. Cooper. 20 MR. MOSHENBERG: Avi Moshenberg on behalf 21 of Dr. Cooper. 22 THE COURT: Thank you. And appearance at 23 this time on behalf of the nonparty patients. 24 MR. LOGAN: William Logan from Winston & 25 Strawn on behalf of the nonparty patients. And with me
1 today are Evan Lewis and Thanh Nguyen. 2 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. And 3 appearance on behalf of Children's. 4 MR. SUTKER: Cory Sutker, Your Honor, for 5 Children's. 6 THE COURT: Thank you. And appearance on 7 behalf of UT Southwestern. 8 MR. WALSH: David Walsh and Peter Anderson 9 for UT Southwestern. 10 THE COURT: Thank you. And then we also 11 have with us today on behalf of the AG's office. So if 12 I can have an appearance at this time. 13 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. Brianna 14 Krominga. Brianna Krominga, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: You'll probably have to pull 16 that one a little closer to you during the course of the 17 hearing. 18 All right. I'm going to remind everybody 19 here at the outset, acoustics in the courtroom are poor. 20 And so we have made sure that everybody has their own 21 dedicated microphone today for that purpose. Please 22 make sure, whoever is speaking, that you are utilizing 23 your microphone. And I will just ask for those persons 24 that are with us via zoom, if you are not speaking, if 25 you can ensure that you are muted so that we don't have
1 any interference here in the courtroom and the court 2 reporter is able to adequately take a record. 3 We're set today on a number of motions. 4 The Court is just going to memorialize those. The 5 State's motion for protection. The State's Rule 11 6 motion, UT Southwestern's motion for protection, the 7 nonparty patients' expedited motion for partial stay of 8 protection and motion for protection regarding party 9 discovery, and then as well, Children's motion for 10 protective order. 11 The parties provided to the Court a list of 12 each of those filings that they believed were necessary 13 for the Court to review. The Court will just note a 14 number of items the Court received this morning once it 15 had already started its pretrial docket. So obviously I 16 do my best to be prepared, but you can't expect 17 miracles, and if I didn't get it before 8 o'clock a.m., 18 I probably have not read it. Okay? 19 Okay. Just a couple of things related to 20 venue, not the subject of any motions, but I think we 21 need to cover this. We initially had the hearing on the 22 motion to transfer venue back on February 26th of 2025. 23 At that time I took those motions under advisement 24 pending the venue discovery. I entered orders directing 25 production of the venue discovery on February the 28th.
1 I further order direct in compliance was entered on 2 March the 7th. There was a flurry of additional filings 3 related to redactions which the Court addressed via 4 docket entry on March the 19th. 5 At this time I'll ask UT Southwestern and 6 Children's to each confirm production of the venue 7 discovery has been completed and compliance with all of 8 the Court's instructions. 9 Mr. Sutker. 10 MR. SUTKER: Yes, Your Honor. After the -- 11 after receiving from Ms. Patterson the Court's docket 12 entry for yesterday, we revised the redactions slightly 13 and sent them out in three batches to the respective 14 attorneys who were to get them. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. UT Southwestern. 16 MR. WALSH: We did as well, Your Honor. I 17 just -- to clarify, though, that we only had records for 18 Dr. Cooper that was responsive so we sent that to the 19 State and Dr. Cooper's lawyers. We did not have 20 anything for Dr. Lau's side of the case, which was 21 reflected in the log we did a long time ago. We also 22 filed that notice that we did that yesterday with the 23 Court. 24 THE COURT: Thank you. The Court saw the 25 notice. I'm appreciative of it. Again, I just wanted
1 it on the record. 2 Okay. So having confirmed production is 3 complete, I'm just going to have all our respective 4 interest holders confirm that they have, in fact, 5 received it. 6 So the State? 7 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes, Judge. 8 THE COURT: Lau? 9 MR. LEGG: We have received them. 10 THE COURT: Cooper? 11 MS. HOLLAND: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: And nonparty patients? 13 MR. LOGAN: Yes, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: All right. So at this time, 15 having completed the venue discovery, I think it's 16 proper for the Court to order as follows: I order the 17 parties to supplement the venue motions that are 18 existing. Those summary judgments should be filed on or 19 before March the 28th, no more than ten pages. 20 Thereafter, if the parties to desire to file a response 21 to the opposing party's supplement, you may do so on or 22 before April the 4th. The Court will render a ruling 23 after review of the supplements and the responses 24 thereto unless the parties are requesting additional 25 oral argument on the venue issue.
1 Let me ask at this time, are the parties 2 requesting an additional time to present oral argument? 3 If you are, I'm going to be setting y'all for April 4 the 7th at 9:00 a.m. State? 5 MR. FARQUHARSON: Subject to anything from 6 Johnathan, no, I don't think so. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Lau? 8 MR. LEGG: We'd like to set a hearing for 9 oral argument, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Cooper? 11 MS. HOLLAND: Yes, Your Honor, we'd like a 12 hearing as well. 13 THE COURT: In light of the fact that at 14 least two of the parties would prefer to have additional 15 oral argument, the Court hereby sets this matter for 16 further hearing April the 7th at 9:00 a.m. And I think 17 that addresses everything that I needed to as it relates 18 to venue. 19 I've already referenced if I received it 20 after 8:00 a.m., I probably have not read it in its 21 entirety. I do want to ask some additional questions 22 related to the Dallas proceedings. I've asked 23 repeatedly for the transcript. My understanding is, is 24 at present, no persons have received the transcript from 25 the Dallas County court and that the court reporter has
1 not prepared that transcript. Is that a current, 2 accurate statement of where we're at with that 3 transcript, State? 4 MR. SHATTO: That's correct for the State, 5 Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Lau, do you believe that 7 to be correct? 8 MR. LEGG: We believe that to be correct, 9 too, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Cooper? 11 MS. HOLLAND: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: And nonparty patients? 13 MR. LOGAN: Yes, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: Okay. I was provided an 15 advisory this morning regarding the status of the 16 appellate proceedings that contained therein a statement 17 of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals per curiam opinion. 18 I'm just going to ask for all parties to confirm that 19 they did receive the per curiam opinion by the Fifteenth 20 Court and have had an opportunity to review because I 21 anticipate it's part of what we're going to be 22 discussing today. State? 23 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes, Judge. 24 THE COURT: Lau? 25 MR. LEGG: Yes, Your Honor.
1 THE COURT: Cooper? 2 MS. HOLLAND: No, Your Honor, we have not 3 received that. 4 THE COURT: Okay. If I can ask if one of 5 the other counsel -- Lau, if you're able to provide a 6 copy to Ms. Holland so she is able to review that in 7 connection with today, I would be very appreciative. 8 Let me go ahead and ask, nonparty patients, 9 have you also received a copy of that? 10 MR. LOGAN: We did. We also filed a 11 response to the advisory. 12 THE COURT: Okay. I don't have a response 13 to the advisory. It's not even something that I was 14 aware we've received via e-mail. Did you provide that 15 to the Court at any time? 16 MR. LOGAN: We filed it, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: So I'll get it about 48 hours 18 from now if all you did was file it. So did you provide 19 Ms. Patterson a courtesy copy via e-mail? 20 MR. LOGAN: I have not, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Do you have a hard copy? 22 MR. LOGAN: I may, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Okay. If you do, I encourage 24 you to proffer that to the Court because, otherwise, the 25 Court will have zero access to anything you've said
1 until about 48 hours from now. 2 While he's looking for that, I believe it's 3 probably most appropriate for us to begin with the 4 Rule 12 motion to show authority. Is there any 5 disagreements from anyone on that? After looking at 6 totality of the motions that are set today, obviously 7 the issues are very interrelated, but it seems the 8 precursor to that is the Rule 12. 9 Mr. Walsh, do you concur? 10 MR. WALSH: I think that's a perfect 11 starting point. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Then in connection with 13 that, obviously the Court's had an opportunity to review 14 the verified motion to show authority and as well the 15 response thereto, so I'm going to go ahead and turn this 16 over to counsel for the AG's office to present argument. 17 And I hope y'all will understand, I have a lot of 18 questions, and so if I interrupt you to ask questions, 19 you know, I hope that you will understand it's really 20 just in an effort for me to understand where you're 21 coming from in connection with your position. And so 22 just remember, keep that microphone pulled close, okay, 23 and stay seated. 24 All right. Counsel. 25 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. Brianna
1 Krominga on behalf of the AG. 2 Before I proceed, just procedurally, yes, 3 we are the movant, but it is a burden-shifting motion. 4 So it might make sense for UT Southwestern to begin, but 5 I will defer to your preference there, of course. 6 THE COURT: The Court prefers to hear from 7 you as the movant. I am certainly aware of the burden 8 shifting that goes along in connection with Rule 12, but 9 I think as the proponent of the request, it's proper to 10 hear from you first. 11 MS. KROMINGA: Absolutely, Your Honor. And 12 we did file a reply, which we understand the Court would 13 not have had the opportunity to review so -- 14 THE COURT: To my knowledge, the Court has 15 not received -- not even just hasn't had an opportunity 16 to review, similarly to this reply over here, we have 17 not received it, so. 18 MS. KROMINGA: I do have a courtesy file 19 stamped -- I have a courtesy copy for the Court if you 20 would like. 21 THE COURT: I would. 22 MS. KROMINGA: May I approach? 23 THE COURT: Yes, please. Thank you. 24 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. 25 Your Honor, to begin, the AG's interest
1 here is very simple, very straightforward. Under the 2 Texas Constitution, our attorney general has a mandate 3 to defend the rule of law. And so intervention in this 4 case and the motion to show authority is simply because 5 UT Southwestern did not comply with its statutory 6 obligations under the Texas Government Code, namely, 7 seeking permission by the attorney general and getting 8 permission before retaining outside counsel. 9 THE COURT: Okay. So can I ask a couple 10 questions? They did ask for authority; that authority 11 was denied in February. Correct? 12 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Okay. So what is your 14 understanding of the length of time it took the AG's 15 office to respond to the request for counsel? 16 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. In the 17 response from the nonparty, they stipulate that that was 18 about 30 days. I have no reason to contradict that. So 19 I would -- I would agree to that. However, importantly 20 -- well, I guess it touches on few points, and I'm sure 21 Your Honor is interested in them all. One of them is 22 the language that they cited under the General 23 Appropriations Act, specifically 16.01(c), which has a 24 ten-day limitation there. Nothing that limitation -- 25 first, the General Appropriations Act, as we have
1 briefed, it's not an enabling statute. It's an 2 expenditure of funds, that's it. We have cited in our 3 reply lots of case law which specifically says that 4 nothing in an appropriations bill can modify specific 5 law/existing law in this state such as government code. 6 So regardless of what -- 7 THE COURT: So what's the usual process? 8 Because I'm sure UT Southwestern gets served with 9 subpoenas all the time. So what is the usual process? 10 MS. KROMINGA: Yes. Exactly, Your Honor. 11 So the usual process is that an agency in 12 the state of Texas or an individual sued in their 13 official capacity, would submit a request for 14 representation by the attorney general. If that request 15 for representation was denied, then they would submit a 16 request to retain outside counsel. 17 Now, you are correct, UT Southwestern does 18 this all the time. Very familiar. And, in fact, 19 usually, or what I have seen, is if they want to retain 20 outside counsel because of complexities or an alleged 21 conflict, they note that to the attorney general in 22 their request for representation, requesting that it be 23 denied, and that is -- my understanding, that's taken 24 into consideration. I obviously do not make those 25 determinations. But I have -- I have with me examples.
1 I don't know that UT Southwestern wants -- 2 THE COURT: So let me make sure I 3 understand. The usual process is, we make the request 4 to the AG's office. If it's denied, as it was here, 5 then they would make a second, subsequent request that 6 says may we retain outside counsel. 7 MS. KROMINGA: So your understanding of the 8 process is correct but not how it happened in this case. 9 UT South -- 10 THE COURT: No, I'm just asking in the 11 general case. That's ordinarily how UT Southwestern 12 would have gone about it. 13 MS. KROMINGA: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay. So timing-wise here, UT 15 Southwestern makes the request. A significant period of 16 time goes by, in excess of the ten days, and the 17 deadline for UT Southwestern to respond to the subpoenas 18 is continuing on. Y'all tell them no, and then they 19 would be making a second request to you that says, can 20 we retain outside counsel. Is that correct? Is that 21 what you're saying should have happened? 22 MS. KROMINGA: Yes. They never requested 23 representation. 24 THE COURT: That wasn't -- are you saying 25 that's what should have happened next?
1 MS. KROMINGA: To be clear, it is not 2 required that the request for representation is 3 submitted first, but that is the process that is 4 typical; that's what they do repeatedly. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MS. KROMINGA: So yes, I would say should 7 have -- 8 THE COURT: So let's say they submit that 9 request now. Let's say, okay, well, it's complex, there 10 is lots of issues, and we need outside representation. 11 So I think it's really clear that the gentleman 12 associated with the State of Texas can't represent UT 13 Southwestern in this case, so what would be our next 14 step? Because it doesn't sound like you're saying UT 15 Southwestern has to go without a lawyer. 16 MS. KROMINGA: No. 17 THE COURT: You're just saying, hey, we 18 have to jump through these hurdles and these hoops. 19 MS. KROMINGA: Correct, Your Honor. We, as 20 the AG's office, are statutorily -- are required to 21 represent agencies in the state of Texas, or, if we 22 elect not to, to either allow them to have outside 23 counsel or follow the process that's outlined in the 24 statute. So that would be addressed. They never 25 requested our representation and --
1 THE COURT: Okay, but that's not any 2 question. My question is: How is it going to be 3 addressed? Let's say, okay, great, we all agree UT 4 Southwestern has to have a lawyer. The time frame for 5 these subpoenas to be responded to was close to 6 expiration. We obviously have to preserve objections, 7 we have to observe privileges. So if I was to say the 8 current representation hasn't been blessed by, you know, 9 the AG's office, what is our next step? Does it mean, 10 hey, I have to shut down discovery as it relates to UT 11 Southwestern entirely in this case until the AG's office 12 approves their outside counsel? 13 MS. KROMINGA: I don't know that discovery 14 would necessarily need to be shut down in its entirety. 15 THE COURT: Who would respond to the 16 subpoenas on behalf of UT Southwestern? 17 MS. KROMINGA: Presumably their counsel. I 18 just want to stipulate there are many divisions within 19 the AG, so I -- I don't know who would -- who would take 20 the case. It could be general litigation. It could be 21 an administrative law division. You know, there are 22 several divisions that cases are handled so I just can't 23 necessarily speak for each division where it would be 24 unique. So here, in this capacity, I can say that if 25 they submitted a request for representation, that would
1 be answered. And I -- I don't think I -- the discovery 2 has already occurred in this case, and we discussed that 3 on the status conference, and -- and so I hope that 4 better answers your question. 5 THE COURT: I don't know that it does, 6 so -- and maybe it's because I'm having a disconnect 7 with you. I'm trying to understand what the process is, 8 okay? So my understanding is they made a request and it 9 was denied. And so you're saying, hey, Judge, in the 10 ordinary course, the next request would have come and 11 said, okay, great, we would like to hire an outside 12 lawyer and this is the outside lawyer. Am I hearing you 13 correctly? 14 MS. KROMINGA: Yes. 15 THE COURT: Okay. In this instance, that 16 request was not made to which the AG's office objects. 17 You say, hey, you didn't do the next right thing, 18 correct? 19 MS. KROMINGA: Well, and you did some -- 20 you affirmatively did something in violation of State 21 law. That's -- that's really the point there is that -- 22 THE COURT: So is it the AG's position that 23 UT Southwestern should have asserted no objections 24 whatsoever to the subpoenas while it was waiting for the 25 AG's office to respond? That's really what I'm -- I'm
1 trying to look at it from a practical perspective. 2 MS. KROMINGA: Right. 3 THE COURT: It doesn't sound like you're 4 here saying UT Southwestern should be here 5 unrepresented. You're saying there's hurdles and hoops 6 that we have to jump through. Okay. And I hear you on 7 that. But from a practical concern, I've got live 8 discovery in this case. I have subpoenas that are out 9 to UT Southwestern which have to be responded. And 10 obviously, these involve medical records, so there are 11 going to be some objections, some privileges that have 12 to be asserted, and certainly the AG's office is not 13 saying that those should not be made. 14 MS. KROMINGA: Absolutely not, Your Honor. 15 We aren't saying that at all. 16 THE COURT: But without them being present 17 in this case, who was supposed to make those by the 18 deadline? 19 MS. KROMINGA: Well, our argument would be 20 that it would have been the AG's office had they 21 requested to be represented knowing there were 22 deadlines, but they didn't. 23 THE COURT: Okay. And I guess my -- the 24 date that you denied the request that they did make, 25 when was that?
1 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, can I intervene 2 here very briefly? I believe Johnathan has briefed this 3 issue in our filings to the Court. I cannot speak for 4 the attorney general's office, just the State, but I 5 think Johnathan's muted, and he has briefed the issue. 6 MS. KROMINGA: Your Honor, I'll point 7 back -- for purposes of your question, back to the 8 response to UT Southwestern which says that it was 9 denied on February 20th. 10 MR. STONE: Can you guys hear me? 11 THE COURT: We can, Mr. Stone. 12 MR. STONE: Oh. Your Honor, we briefed 13 this in our response to UT Southwestern's privileges and 14 objections and requests for protection. Under Rule 12, 15 if you decide that Mr. Walsh lacks the authority to 16 represent UT Southwestern and there is no one in court 17 today that can stand up and represent UT Southwestern 18 today, you are required under Rule 12 to strike his 19 pleadings. So we move -- 20 THE COURT: So then, Mr. Stone, answer my 21 practical question, which is: If I strike his 22 pleadings, does that mean that there are no objections 23 whatsoever that were asserted to the subpoenas that were 24 issued to UT Southwestern? 25 MR. STONE: Yes. Only privileges. They
1 can assert privileges later as they obtain documents. 2 They can assert privileges under Rule 193. But 3 objections are waived. 4 THE COURT: Okay. And here -- here is my 5 struggle with that, okay? The rule affirmatively 6 requires a response within ten business days. One was 7 not provided. And so there is not a reasonable period 8 of time for UT Southwestern to make those additional 9 requests and to follow the hurdles that the AG's office 10 wants them to file such that they have sufficient amount 11 of time to file objections prior to the expiration of 12 the time for them to assert objections with the service 13 of the subpoena. There just simply was not with when 14 y'all gave them the response. 15 And so, again, I'm looking at this from a 16 practical perspective. I just am trying to find out 17 what is the AG's endgame here? I am not going to find 18 that UT Southwestern has waived all objections to these 19 subpoenas because you didn't meet the time frame within 20 the rule and, as a result, I cannot find that your delay 21 takes away UT Southwestern's objections. I simply 22 cannot do that. 23 And so because of that, we have two options 24 today. Option one is you say, hey, the AG's office is 25 going to have counsel for UT Southwestern, and so,
1 Judge, what we're asking for you to do is to stay all 2 discovery involving UT Southwestern until we follow 3 those hoops and hurdles and we get a lawyer who has 4 proper authority before this Court. Or we say, hey, for 5 the discovery that's already out the door, the motion to 6 transfer venue discovery in roll one which we're going 7 to be discussing, you know what, we would agree for 8 purposes of that that UT Southwestern is properly 9 represented. Now, we may find at a later date, after 10 conference, that the representation transitions in a 11 different way, but that's where we're at. 12 So my question to the AG's office is: 13 Which is it? Do I -- are we staying all discovery today 14 as it relates to UT Southwestern, or is the AG's office 15 going to be take the position, Judge, we don't want to 16 do that. We hear where you're coming from. Instead 17 what we would like to do is to say, without waiving our 18 other arguments, we want to permit Mr. Walsh to shepherd 19 the venue discovery in roll one and then we will work 20 with UT Southwestern to see whether or not Mr. Walsh 21 stays on or whether we follow the hoops and hurdles and 22 before any additional discovery happens from UT 23 Southwestern after roll one, there is different counsel 24 that comes in? 25 That's -- that is where we're at as far as
1 this Court is concerned. And I understand that having 2 made those assertions, the State may need to huddle and 3 discuss with Mr. Stone who is on Zoom how we want to go 4 forward. 5 I don't think there's any case law 6 whatsoever that says that -- let me try to find it -- 7 that there's a waiver of the arguments that the AG's 8 office is making by failure to meet the ten days. 9 There's just no cases. I looked; there's not. In fact, 10 I'll just note that the bulk of the motions that are 11 presented to the Court are wholly devoid of any 12 authority on all sides. 13 So y'all are really just here today saying, 14 Judge, this is how we feel. And that's great. But I 15 really like authority. And so I'm not going to find a 16 waiver by them today of the arguments that they've made. 17 The hoops and hurdles are there for a reason, but they 18 had ten days to get you a response, and so for that 19 reason I will not find that UT Southwestern has waived 20 objections. 21 We're going to stand in recess for ten 22 minutes so that y'all can talk about how you want to go 23 forward with the alternatives that the Court has 24 presented. 25 (Recess was taken)
1 THE COURT: All right. At this time we're 2 going to go back on the record. We took a brief recess 3 so that the AG's office had an opportunity to confer 4 with her team in light of the Court's statement, how you 5 desire to proceed. So, Counsel, at this time, if I can 6 hear from you. 7 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. 8 Given the two options that the Court 9 provided, the AG's office is prepared to say we would 10 request a stay of the discovery, and the AG will assign 11 someone to represent UT Southwestern in this matter. 12 THE COURT: And so I guess that takes us to 13 you. I'm obviously not going to find that the 14 objections are in any way waived, but I think probably 15 you need to ask your client as to whether or not they 16 are willing at this time to accept the AG's offer to 17 have them be represented, knowing that I won't be 18 striking any of the motions for protection or otherwise, 19 and to transition that or whether or not they would ask 20 you to stand on your argument that there is a conflict 21 in connection with that and ask for you to urge that 22 today at hearing. 23 MR. WALSH: Okay. 24 THE COURT: Okay. So we'll be off the 25 record again.
1 MR. FARQUHARSON: Can I put something on 2 the record very quickly? 3 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 4 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, I just want to 5 clarify. The Court said that it gave the attorney 6 general's office time to confer with its team. We would 7 urge there is a distinction between the State and the 8 attorney general. 9 THE COURT: I thought the AG's office was 10 conferring with Mr. Stone in light of the fact that he 11 did the briefing on the impact of the objections, if the 12 Court were to remove or to not remove those, to inform 13 her as to her decision. 14 MR. FARQUHARSON: So we have a position 15 that is slightly modified from the attorney general's 16 office. Our position is that a stay would be 17 appropriate, a limited stay in terms of time would be 18 appropriate for Dr. Cooper production given that that is 19 what has been represented is the only thing that UT 20 Southwestern has. 21 MR. WALSH: That was the only thing we have 22 on venue discovery. 23 THE COURT: So I think what you're saying 24 is there are patient records, but that was all you had 25 on -- I'm not sure how that would be possible.
1 MR. WALSH: If I can explain. So the venue 2 discovery came out and it was like, I don't know, four 3 or five patients -- and I'm summarizing in very summary 4 fashion -- four or five patients for each doctor and it 5 was medical billing records or whatever. And so for the 6 Lau patients on that list, UT had no record. Now, on 7 the rolling -- 8 THE COURT: On the broader list you have a 9 bigger -- 10 MR. WALSH: We have -- we have Lau records 11 on that. And I believe it's Lau billing and medical 12 records although I can't -- I don't think it's on every 13 patient that's on the list, but we have Lau records. 14 THE COURT: There are some is what you're 15 saying. 16 MR. WALSH: Correct. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. FARQUHARSON: So I think that would 19 just make our position that it needs to be limited in 20 time to give the attorney general's office time to 21 make -- do whatever they're going to do. We just don't 22 want it to be an indefinite or -- 23 THE COURT: That's not the Court's 24 intention. I think what I'm trying to tell y'all is, 25 hey, we took longer to get through the process than was
1 needed before the expiration of time to lodge any 2 objections to the subpoenas would have come. Because 3 even if they had put in what you're saying is the proper 4 second request, we were still right up against the 5 deadline. And so because of that, I'm not going to find 6 that those objections are waived. I'm not going to at 7 this time strike the motions for protection or 8 otherwise. I'm going to leave them as a placeholder, 9 and right now I'm going to ask counsel if you will talk 10 with your client to find out whether or not their 11 request is for you to argue conflict as you've asserted 12 or whether or not they would ask that you work with the 13 AG's office so that representation can be transitioned 14 and then they will choose whether or not to pull the 15 motions for protection down, amend them or otherwise. 16 MR. WALSH: One slight clarification after 17 talking with my client at the break is that the normal 18 process doesn't necessarily involve asking for the AG to 19 represent the State entity because the State entity can 20 say, hey, there's this, that, or the other and we can -- 21 according to my client, we can request outside counsel 22 from the get-go. So it's not like we skipped -- 23 THE COURT: But it sounds like you can -- 24 it's still a request, right? You still have to request 25 to engage outside counsel? So there's still a request.
1 MR. WALSH: Correct. 2 THE COURT: So all I'm saying is y'all need 3 to talk to each other, it sounds like, about is it going 4 to be we request to obtain not AG's office but outside 5 counsel until we work with you on who is that outside 6 counsel that can be retained if it's not you. Is that 7 what your client wants to do? Or do they want you to 8 argue no, come hell or high water, we get to hire who we 9 want, in which case we need to argue further? 10 MR. WALSH: Okay. 11 THE COURT: Okay. And you have a question. 12 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. I just 13 wanted to put -- clarify on the record, given Your 14 Honor's statement, that they made the request. We did 15 not respond within the ten days and so, because of that, 16 we are butting up against the time. I just want to put 17 onto the record that there -- we are not asserting that 18 it would have had to have been done, wait for a denial, 19 and then request representation or that they had to do 20 one before the other. 21 What we are simply stating is they had an 22 avenue that entire time to get representation by the 23 AG's office to respond to the subpoenas on their behalf 24 and they chose not to, so it's a delay of their own 25 making. That is our sole argument on that front.
1 THE COURT: And based upon the briefing, I 2 believe y'all have a dispute regarding that. Okay? And 3 so I'm not here at this juncture to resolve that 4 dispute. I am merely saying, hey, it sounds like you're 5 saying there's more hoops and hurdles and that you -- 6 the AG's office now says that they will represent. And 7 so I now need to hear from UT Southwestern as to how 8 they want to go forward in connection with that request. 9 And so I think that's where we are right now. Okay. Do 10 you disagree? 11 MR. WALSH: No. And I, in fact, will go 12 ask my client what they would like to do in that 13 situation. 14 THE COURT: And I would actually encourage 15 the two of y'all to confer before you call your client. 16 That may inform, you know, the call with the client and 17 what you will represent. So with that, we'll be 18 standing in recess again. 19 (Recess was taken) 20 THE COURT: Counsel. 21 MR. WALSH: I wanted to summarize kind of 22 some off-the-record stuff. I asked who it would be that 23 would represent UT Southwestern, predicting that my 24 client would care, and they -- well, I was told that it 25 would be somebody from within the administrative law
1 division, which was not acceptable to my client, in 2 addition to the very serious concerns about the conflict 3 of issues [sic] issue, so they are going to decline the 4 offer at this time. 5 THE COURT: Okay. So you've added the 6 caveat "at this time." 7 MR. WALSH: Well, I -- 8 THE COURT: And so is that because you 9 don't know who? If the AG's office was to tell you who, 10 would that impact your client's decision? 11 MR. WALSH: I seriously doubt that it would 12 because they have serious concerns about the conflict 13 issue. 14 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, we're 15 going to go ahead and continue on in connection with 16 argument. Notwithstanding the matter of the Court's 17 ruling here today, I am going to find that I'm 18 essentially granting an extension so that there is no 19 waiver of any objections. And so I'll go ahead and ask 20 AG's office, in connection with that, if I can hear 21 further from you. 22 You have represented at this time that the 23 AG's office would take on the representation. It 24 appears, then, that in reality, the remaining argument 25 we need to address relates to the alleged conflict in
1 the AG's office handling the representation in light of 2 the fact that the State is the one advancing the claims 3 in connection with this cause. So if I can hear from 4 you in connection with that. 5 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. 6 So I want to be delicate in proceeding 7 because it is our position that whether or not there's a 8 perceived conflict of interest -- it's actually the 9 interest position of the supreme court, and I have a 10 copy of a case for you if you need it. 11 But in 1988, Chief Justice Wallace wrote an 12 opinion on this and said that even if their belief -- 13 there is belief to be a conflict of interest because the 14 attorney general represents both sides of the V or 15 multiple parties in a lawsuit, it's -- it's -- A, it's 16 not a conflict unless the actual attorney itself is 17 representing both sides which isn't -- in this case it's 18 not an issue. And B, if it was, it's an issue that the 19 legislature is making, and the legislature is the only 20 one that can fix that. 21 So it wouldn't be -- it is our position 22 that it's not an issue for the Court in terms of whether 23 or not UT Southwestern -- Mr. Walsh has the authority to 24 represent UT Southwestern. It's -- that conflict is not 25 contemplated by the legislature. It was only
1 contemplated in the General Appropriations Act when 2 it comes to expenditure of funds, but nowhere in that 3 act -- A, it's not an enabling statute; but B, nowhere 4 in the General Appropriations Act does it say that that 5 would be a conflict for purposes of representation and 6 retaining outside counsel just for expenditure of funds. 7 And so I don't know if that answers the 8 Court's question, but we don't believe there is a 9 conflict. It's the case law, which again is in our 10 reply -- and the Court, unfortunately on our end, did 11 not get the opportunity to review before this hearing -- 12 but there is plenty of case law that says there is no -- 13 there is no conflict when it's members of different 14 divisions. There's no conflict when there's -- when it 15 could be attorneys within the same division. And then 16 after it's resolved, whether or not Mr. Walsh has the 17 authority to represent UT Southwestern in this matter, 18 then I could see, once appropriate counsel has been 19 assigned engagement, you know, in what Chinese wall goes 20 up or does not go up. 21 But what I could say right now is that it 22 is a general practice of the Office of the Attorney 23 General, but by default, I do not have access to matters 24 or documents from other divisions. So I think that 25 would address the concerns that are outlined in the
1 response. And certainly their -- the bulk of their 2 response doesn't meet the Rule 12 burden. 3 The response argues that it does because 4 retention of counsel was made and there's an affidavit 5 from the client saying that they did retain Mr. Walsh. 6 No one is disputing that. In fact, we wouldn't be here 7 if we did dispute that. 8 The case law decided it's all about private 9 parties, and UT Southwestern is an agency of the State, 10 it's not a private party, so it has obligations under 11 the government code that it has to follow. So that 12 would not be sufficient to show authority in this case. 13 And then the remainder of the argument from 14 our view is on this concern of the substance of the 15 subpoenas, but again, the substance of the subpoenas 16 don't modify the requirements under the government code. 17 It has no bearing on the requirement to seek and get 18 approval for outside counsel. 19 THE COURT: And if you have those cases, 20 obviously, I haven't read your reply to the extent it 21 addresses this issue, so that would be tremendously 22 helpful. I'm going to segue for a second and state, I 23 have a couple questions for y'all in connection with 24 some of the arguments that were made. 25 One of the arguments made as it relates to
1 UT Southwestern throughout all of the filings is its 2 perception and belief that the patients haven't been 3 provided notice, and so I have just a couple questions, 4 practical questions, related to that particular issue. 5 So, UT Southwestern, you say that you are, 6 in fact, aware that some patients have not received 7 notice, correct? 8 MR. WALSH: Based on what I've heard from 9 other people. 10 THE COURT: And well -- okay. Who are 11 these people? 12 MR. LOGAN: I'm one, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Okay. So how do you know that 14 those patients have not received notice? 15 MR. WALSH: Because what Mr. Logan told me 16 was that the State conceded that some of the patients 17 don't have notice. Now, I -- look, and notices are 18 concern -- 19 THE COURT: Everybody, remember I can't 20 hear you if you're standing. So I know both of you want 21 to talk, but go ahead and grab a seat, okay? 22 So you're saying, hey, Judge, I've got some 23 hearsay that the patients don't have notice. I myself 24 don't have any independent knowledge. And here's why 25 I'm asking. At this juncture, you have the master
1 patient list and you've got the PMP records, correct? 2 MR. WALSH: We do not have the PMP records. 3 THE COURT: Okay. So I guess I thought 4 that those were also made available to the hospitals. 5 Were they not? 6 MR. STONE: No, those were not provided to 7 the hospitals. The PMP records were provided, I 8 believe, to counsel for Lau and Cooper. Counsel for Lau 9 and Cooper also have disclosures that has the contact 10 information for all of the patients in this case. 11 THE COURT: And, Mr. Stone, that's going to 12 be one of my questions in just a second, so just bear 13 with me. So they don't have the PMP records, okay. 14 So one of the things I was going to ask is, 15 hey, have y'all done a cross-reference so we can 16 actually ascertain which of the patients you've got that 17 you believe that there's an incorrect address, and you 18 are telling me, Judge, I don't have the documents to do 19 that. 20 MR. WALSH: Correct. And I would just add 21 one other thing is, the subpoena came to us with, like, 22 a protective order but nothing else showing that either 23 under state law that they had been served with a -- the 24 patients had been served with a subpoena under Rule 205 25 or notice. We just get this dumped in our lap and so we
1 -- the first thing we look at is have the patients been 2 notified, is there a court order. We're looking for 3 ways to see what -- how we can comply, and we didn't 4 have anything at the time. And that's why our concern 5 about notice arose. 6 THE COURT: Okay. So at this juncture, you 7 are saying, hey, Judge, I do know there's a protective 8 order. Is that a yes? 9 MR. WALSH: Yes, Your Honor. Sorry. 10 THE COURT: Okay. And you do know there's 11 court orders? 12 MR. WALSH: Yes and no, but no court order 13 that actually tells me produce record X, Y, and Z. 14 There's the -- currently the collection order and the 15 venue discovery order but nothing to produce record X 16 yet, which is that's the -- again, going back to you 17 entered the orders on the 28th that UT Southwestern 18 wasn't present for that had the rolling tranches that 19 then on our later hearing -- 20 THE COURT: So you are aware of those 21 records? 22 MR. WALSH: Correct. And -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. 24 State, y'all told me that you called every 25 single one of the patients and you talked with those who
1 would speak with you. How many did you talk with? 2 MR. FARQUHARSON: Johnathan will be able to 3 answer numbers better than I can. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Stone? 5 MR. STONE: Yeah. Yes, Your Honor. We 6 called every single patient that we had contact 7 information for. We left voicemails for them. Some of 8 them would speak to us; some of them wouldn't speak to 9 us. 10 THE COURT: How many is that that you 11 left -- that you had contact information for? 12 MR. STONE: We have contact information for 13 all 36, but I don't have at my fingertips right now the 14 number that spoke -- we have a spreadsheet of the number 15 that spoke with us, because we had to schedule follow-up 16 calls and work around schedules. So there is -- we have 17 some internal documentation that tracked it, when we 18 called them. We also mailed them notice. We used the 19 PMP addresses except for when we talked to some of the 20 patients, if they had an updated address, and they 21 were -- we told them, hey, this is the address we have 22 for you, is that correct. And some of them said, oh, 23 no, that's not the correct address, this is my correct 24 address. So we would update it and then we put all of 25 those addresses that were applicable in the disclosures
1 that we sent to Cooper and Lau -- counsel for Cooper and 2 Lau. 3 THE COURT: Okay. And so then I'm going to 4 come to counsel for Doctors Cooper and Lau. Y'all did 5 receive the PMP records and updated addresses, correct? 6 MR. LEGG: Correct. We received the 7 disclosures and the PMP, correct. 8 THE COURT: And you have the master list at 9 this juncture? 10 MR. LEGG: Correct. 11 THE COURT: And you have not reached out to 12 the State and said, hey, we think you have the wrong 13 address for any of these folks? 14 MR. LEGG: To my knowledge, we have not. 15 THE COURT: Okay. State -- and so, 16 Mr. Stone, let me ask you since you're speaking on this 17 issue. I guess I -- and I apologize if I had 18 misunderstood. Is there any objection to providing the 19 PMP list to the hospitals so that they're able to 20 identify to you whether or not there are any missed 21 addresses? 22 MR. STONE: It would be easier if we, like, 23 just gave them the addresses that we used as opposed to 24 the PMP records, because remember, some of the PMP 25 records --
1 THE COURT: I just am trying to figure out 2 how do I get them those addresses so that the hospitals 3 themselves can look and say, hey, you didn't have the 4 right address for patient 5? 5 MR. STONE: I think that if the Court -- 6 certainly if the Court ordered us to -- this is not 7 something we're going to fight about at all. If you 8 want us to provide it to the hospitals so that they can 9 cross-reference it, we are totally comfortable with 10 that. We even suggested renoticing everyone a couple of 11 weeks ago and -- for the hospitals, on the hospitals' 12 side, if that would ease their minds and they wanted to 13 send out notices again to all of the patients. So we 14 wouldn't have any objections if the Court wants us to do 15 that. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Sutker, are you 17 comfortable conferring with the State related to the 18 addresses so we can identify if any of your patients, 19 the addresses were sent to an incorrect address? 20 MR. SUTKER: Yeah. I think out of all the 21 things that we are talking about, that may seem to be 22 the easiest thing to do today. 23 THE COURT: Okay. So yes, you would agree 24 to confer with the State following today's hearing for 25 y'all to work together to identify any -- where the
1 addresses are incorrect. And then, Mr. Stone, you're 2 saying, hey, Juge, we've got no problem, we'll just 3 renotice so that they -- they do receive that notice. 4 Is that correct? 5 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor, for the State, 6 that's totally fine with us. 7 MR. SUTKER: And, Your Honor, the only 8 modification just being all we can do is verify that 9 what we have is the last known address as well but 10 whether that's a correct address, I guess -- 11 THE COURT: Well, I think that's one of the 12 reasons that the law requires good faith or reasonable 13 efforts. And I think so long as we've confirmed that 14 we're sending it to the last known address, that the 15 Court would feel confident that we are making those good 16 faith, reasonable efforts. 17 Mr. Stone? 18 MR. STONE: Yeah, little caveat. Your 19 Honor, this is very agreeable to us. The little caveat, 20 though, is what happens if there's an address that we 21 have wrong? Is Mr. Sutker going to give us the correct 22 address or will he send out the notice? Logistically, 23 who do you want to do it? 24 THE COURT: I think it's probably best for 25 you to send it, but, Mr. Sutker, if you have a
1 different -- if you would prefer a different approach, 2 certainly the Court is open to you saying, Judge, I 3 think that it would be better if we sent the notice, I'm 4 perfectly comfortable with y'all doing so. I just need 5 for you to speak up. 6 MR. SUTKER: Yeah, I think it -- right as I 7 sit here today, I would probably want to confer with my 8 client as to what they feel comfortable doing, but I 9 have no doubt that Mr. Stone and I can come to an 10 agreement on whatever the end result is. 11 THE COURT: Okay. And how long do y'all 12 need for that conference? What's reasonable? 13 MR. SUTKER: With my client, it shouldn't 14 take very long. We can accomplish that next week. But 15 it -- then it would also depend on volume, I guess, of 16 people who need to be noticed because if it's a handful 17 that -- 18 THE COURT: I'm just talking about you and 19 Mr. Stone's conference as to ascertain, hey, these are 20 the folks that we had the incorrect addresses. I think 21 that probably means the two of you need to schedule a 22 call. It will probably take, I would assume, you know, 23 20, 30 minutes, if we're going through that small, 24 limited list. So are y'all comfortable getting that 25 done tomorrow?
1 MR. SUTKER: I'm still out of town in a 2 conference tomorrow but I can try to see if -- 3 THE COURT: Yeah, Mr. Walsh told me. 4 You're, like, the keynote speaker or something. 5 MR. SUTKER: Not quite. And if I was, then 6 I've disappointed a lot of people today. But sometime 7 early next week for sure. 8 THE COURT: Okay. And, Mr. Stone, do you 9 feel comfortable with that? 10 MR. STONE: Absolutely, Your Honor. It's 11 only -- and it's only 15 patients, because 22 of them 12 are already represented. So it's narrow. We're very 13 comfortable. Early next week. 14 THE COURT: Great. Can you tell me real 15 fast, Mr. Stone, what's the number of patients that 16 we're looking at in connection with UT Southwestern 17 before I hear from Mr. Walsh? That are not represented. 18 Remind me. 19 MR. STONE: Oh, I -- I don't know that off 20 the top of my head. I think they have 11 out of -- you 21 know what? I think counsel for the represented parties 22 may know this off the top of his head. I apologize, 23 Your Honor. 24 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, I know that we 25 represent 22 out of the 37 that were originally
1 subpoenaed. I think they said it's down to 36 now, 2 but... 3 THE COURT: Okay. So very few. 4 Did y'all talk amongst yourselves about the 5 MTV, the motion to transfer venue discovery and what did 6 we decide in connection with that? Did we make a 7 decision? You said you were going to make a stipulation 8 and then was that acceptable to the AG's office? 9 MS. KROMINGA: So I apologize. I think 10 that we might have misunderstood that because, because 11 UT Southwestern said they would not agree to the stay -- 12 MR. WALSH: The representation. 13 MS. KROMINGA: The stay relating to the 14 representation. That's my understanding, Your Honor, 15 was that we would -- we would get a stipulation that the 16 AG's office would represent UT Southwestern, we would 17 ask for a stay so that procedure could be followed. 18 They said no. 19 THE COURT: And so I just am trying to 20 understand, right, when I get to the end of this, what 21 are the Court's options. And so what is the AG's 22 position if the Court ultimately -- as I've already 23 said, hey, I'm not going to find that their objections 24 are wholly waived, but we've already made the MTV 25 discovery.
1 At present, if we were going to go forward 2 with the orders that I've already got in place, there's 3 documents scheduled to go out, you know, tomorrow 4 morning related to the patient records. So I need to 5 know what is the AG's office, you know, position with 6 respect to that. Are you going to say, we are not going 7 to argue that Mr. Walsh did not have authority to do 8 that such that those records remain protected under the 9 protective order, et cetera, and then if I were to 10 grant, then we would wait until new counsel comes in to 11 take up any of the remaining motions. I just need to 12 know, we're zigging and zagging, what's everybody's 13 respective positions. 14 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. 15 So the AG's position as it relates to the 16 venue discovery that has already gone out is that we 17 would not ask that that be clawed back or argue further 18 that he didn't have the authority to produce that on 19 behalf of UT Southwestern. I think we would want -- 20 whether it's either striking the objections or allowing 21 the appropriate counsel to a time period, maybe ten 22 days, to lodge objections, take back or whatever they 23 feel necessary because they would be appropriate 24 counsel. I don't want to hamstring that, you know, 25 division. That would be our position there. But I do
1 think that if we are -- if we are -- if it is our 2 position that Mr. Walsh does not have the authority to 3 represent UT Southwestern in this matter, then any 4 substantive discovery would not be able to be produced. 5 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then I 6 think we're to you, Mr. Walsh, in connection with you're 7 going to argue that there is a conflict, and so I would 8 like to hear from you. 9 MS. KROMINGA: Would Your Honor like the 10 case that I mentioned? 11 THE COURT: Please. 12 MS. KROMINGA: May I approach? 13 THE COURT: Please do. 14 MR. WALSH: Starting with, I -- Your Honor, 15 I am in sort of a similar position to you in that I 16 really haven't had time to delve into the reply in depth 17 because it came in as I was leaving my office to come 18 here. So the case that they cite, I don't know exactly 19 what it is or what it says. 20 THE COURT: Do you have an extra copy? 21 MS. KROMINGA: I do. 22 MR. WALSH: And I won't be able to address 23 that case until I have a chance to read it. But let me 24 start with, the subpoenas here ask for information that 25 could get UT Southwestern in trouble in a variety of
1 ways -- 2 THE COURT: Can I for purposes of this 3 discussion -- I'm going to interject just for one 4 second. My understanding is that as it relates to 5 Dr. Lau, there were two subpoenas served, and so I'm 6 going to call it subpoena one, which relates to the 7 patient records, and then subpoena two, which relates to 8 the peer-review documents and the credentialing. 9 For purposes of today, I know in the 10 Dr. Cooper case that they were served collectively. It 11 was one document. Notwithstanding that, I think it is 12 likely easier for just division of subject matter to 13 refer to them as subpoena one related to the patient 14 records and subpoena two related to the other documents 15 that would be wholly UT Southwestern's and not impact 16 the nonparty patients. So against that backdrop, if you 17 can refer to them as subpoena one and two when you're 18 making your representative arguments. 19 MR. WALSH: Sure. So subpoena one, the 20 patient record, if I've got the numbers right, we don't 21 have a problem -- assuming notice or court order or 22 whatever satisfies or checks the box on HIPAA, we're 23 ready to produce that. The problem we have in addition 24 to subpoena one's issue about medical records is it's 25 all documents -- as I recall, all documents about the
1 medical records which could include things that in-house 2 counsel talked about among themselves. It could include 3 things that might have gotten sent to the medical 4 committee to evaluate the care of that patient. And so 5 there is other things just -- because the word 6 "document" is so much broader than just the patients' 7 medical records that -- that we have concerns about the 8 way that's phrased. 9 Subpoena two -- and so that's an 10 institutional issue for UT Southwestern, at least on the 11 privilege side, because they have to have the ability to 12 have the medical committee go in and investigate things 13 and be privileged or they're not going to be inclined to 14 do that, and that's all designed to improve patient care 15 at the end of the day. Whether you call it peer review 16 or credentialing, it's kind of the same format. If 17 somebody got in trouble hypothetically because of a 18 patient file and it ended up in credentialing, we would 19 say that the credentialing committee privilege would 20 apply to that because -- or at least that aspect of it 21 because that part -- that part is related to the 22 credentialing aspect even though it's about this one 23 patient. 24 So again, the broad phrase of documents is 25 what has us concerned with subpoena one. And that's our
1 institutional concern because as an institution we have 2 to have the free flow of discussion or free ability to 3 investigate or people aren't going to talk to us or 4 people aren't going to get assigned to do things in a 5 medical peer review or a medical committee. 6 THE COURT: Is that concern still present 7 as the Court has proposed that roll one would occur? 8 MR. WALSH: No. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. WALSH: Because roll one was limited to 11 patient records. And so that -- again, setting aside 12 the HIPAA concern that we could get theoretically an 13 Office for Civil Rights investigation from the federal 14 government, which, you know, institutions are fined 15 hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars 16 for violations and we -- we want to avoid that because, 17 you know, that's a large sum and it's also a black eye 18 for us that could have adverse consequences otherwise, 19 like losing healthcare contracts with insurance 20 companies or federal payers, that we would be worried 21 about. And so -- 22 THE COURT: What's your continued concern 23 under HIPAA in light of the fact that we've entered the 24 protective order? Doesn't that satisfy 45 CFR 25 164.512(e)(2)(B)?
1 MR. WALSH: Well, again, not knowing all 2 that went down before us, I think I'm more satisfied 3 with -- with that, but I'm also more satisfied what I 4 anticipate is going to be the Court order, which is the 5 first and the grandiose exception of them all, if there 6 is a court ordering me to do something, I got to do it, 7 and that's from -- Peter and I represent a bunch of 8 healthcare providers. 9 And so that's the way that they all feel 10 comfortable producing records, either with a consent 11 form from the patient or with a court order to do it, 12 just because the HIPAA police, as we call them, don't -- 13 don't really object if you do something pursuant to a 14 court order or if you have a consent from the patient. 15 And so the -- whether the protective order sufficiently 16 covers the concerns in HIPAA is then we have to evaluate 17 each and every protective order to make sure it 18 complies, and that's the difficulty. 19 I don't -- what I envision is going to 20 happen at the end of this hearing, I don't think -- I 21 think the confidentiality order plus the Court's order 22 would be sufficient to assuage UT Southwestern's concern 23 about production of the first roll of records whenever 24 you would order them. I would say, tomorrow morning, it 25 was the first time I ever heard tomorrow morning as
1 opposed to tomorrow. That's the first time I heard 2 that, today. 3 So I know my office is furiously redacting 4 records to make it comply with your order, and there are 5 some questions I have about things about that that maybe 6 Mr. Stone and I can visit with you in camera, but we're 7 trying to fast and furiously, since I was only hired on 8 the 1st and I've been dealing with a lot of other things 9 in this case, trying to come up with ways to comply with 10 HIPAA. 11 And you know, we look at it -- one other 12 thing just to kind of tie this back to the conflict is, 13 you know, from a patient's perspective, if the person 14 that's requesting the records is the person making the 15 decision about whether the records should be redacted or 16 protected in some fashion, whether the AG has a Chinese 17 wall, that just doesn't seem right and that's -- that's 18 the problem under the ethical rules about that. And you 19 know -- 20 THE COURT: Does she have any authority? 21 Again, so that -- I mean, that's really where I'm at. 22 That's where I'm at on all of these things. You know, 23 you made the argument in the motion, oh, well, they 24 didn't do the ten days so it's waived. Well, the only 25 case you cite actually said waiver is not the right
1 remedy, staying the case is, which is what I'm proposing 2 to do. 3 So, you know, here you're saying, well, all 4 we're trying to do is respond to subpoenas, and that's 5 proper, but we don't have any case law that says any 6 court has said responding to a subpoena is a proper way 7 around this particular rule. And you're arguing it's a 8 conflict, but again, there is no cases that present this 9 circumstance. 10 MR. WALSH: There's no cases at all on this 11 circumstances, Your Honor, and so that's why we have to 12 go back to the statute. 13 THE COURT: Well, and the State just said 14 there is. So maybe one of the things we'll need to do 15 is to take a break and for all of us to review so you 16 can address this case, and I would give you the benefit 17 of having oral argument on it. Because I truly think, 18 at present, with the Court having stayed essentially and 19 preserving all of UT Southwestern's objections, we're 20 down to the conflict issue. And is -- does the conflict 21 issue have merit or does it not? And none of the cases 22 you cite are on point for the factual scenario where 23 we're at, and that's really all I'm looking for, what 24 does the authority say that I'm supposed to do. I 25 prefer not to just flail about in the dark if there's
1 authority that's out there. And if it's an issue of 2 first impression, then great, I'm happy to do it, but I 3 want us to all be confident that it is. And the State 4 is -- excuse me -- the AG's office is saying it's not an 5 issue of first impression. 6 MS. KROMINGA: And, Your Honor, if I may. 7 I just -- I want to be clear because there was mention 8 that this is unique and there is no case. From our 9 perspective, this happens all the time and it's not 10 unique. And so we have cited in our reply several, 11 albeit trial court, cases where this is common, but UT 12 Southwestern is a party to one of those. And in one of 13 the cases that we cited, it's not -- I will admit that 14 it's not on the opposite side of the V but they are -- 15 they have differing objectives and they are both 16 defendants in Compass Group USA, Inc. versus Ken Paxton 17 in his official capacity as attorney general of the 18 State of Texas and the University of Texas Southwestern 19 Medical Center in the 44th District Court of Travis 20 County. 21 And there, Paxton was represented by the 22 administrative law division, and UT Southwestern was 23 represented by the general litigation division. So this 24 is -- not only is it not novel to our office, it's not 25 novel to UT Southwestern. So I do have a copy of the
1 supreme court case and which I said that I -- 2 THE COURT: Are you talking about the 3 Public Utility Commission case, or you're talking about 4 the one that you just referenced? 5 MS. KROMINGA: No, Your Honor. Public 6 Utility versus Cofer that I can -- 7 THE COURT: If you'll proffer that to 8 opposing. 9 MR. WALSH: So if you're ready, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: I'm ready. 11 MR. WALSH: I'm going to have to study that 12 case in a minute, and I appreciate the opportunity to 13 look at it and talk to you about it. 14 I would add that -- so there's the -- the 15 conflict that we have been generally talking about, 16 which is not what I view as the conflict in this sort of 17 scenario because it's the -- it's not the scenario -- 18 it's typically not the scenario where the State as the 19 plaintiff is traipsing through the defendant's employee 20 files, whatever they may be, or e-mails with their 21 employer, which is what is kind of would be happening if 22 there was State representation. 23 And then the second thing is that we 24 haven't even talked about is, 16.01(h), which we 25 attached to -- I think everybody's attached to -- this
1 is the budget -- part of the budget thing. So on H, the 2 legislature says, If a state governmental entity 3 requests attorney general to take legal action against 4 another -- I'm sorry, I'm reading G. I'm sorry. Let me 5 start over. 6 If the attorney general initiates legal 7 action against another state governmental entity on 8 behalf of the attorney general rather than another 9 governmental entity, the legislature determines that 10 conflict of interest exists and that the State 11 governmental entity against which the attorney general 12 takes action may expend appropriate monies for outside 13 legal counsel, dot, dot, dot, without prior approval or 14 consent of the attorney general. And from our view, the 15 subpoenas, while ordinarily, you know, they come with -- 16 even from the AG, they come with consent or they come 17 with whatever that makes us satisfied that these 18 subpoenas are different as we explained in our papers 19 because -- 20 THE COURT: Then why did you ask for 21 approval in the first place? If they're different and 22 you're taking the position, hey, we didn't need 23 approval, why did you ask for it? 24 MR. WALSH: Well, because we had -- we had 25 insight about that the subpoenas were coming before the
1 subpoenas hit. So the subpoenas were served -- well, 2 they tried to serve the subpoenas on UT Southwestern 3 healthcare foundation, or whatever entity that they 4 tried to serve, at CT Corporation. And so we knew 5 subpoenas were coming, and that's when we made our 6 request for outside counsel. We didn't actually get 7 served with the actual subpoenas until later on down the 8 road when we actually saw what they were. 9 And so we requested outside counsel -- 10 again, because it's a sensitive issue involving our 11 employees, we were concerned about the conflict issue, 12 and then it was only cemented when we got it. And then 13 other things have happened since this case has happened. 14 The attorney general, in his own name, has intervened in 15 the lawsuit and wants a declaratory judgment against UT 16 Southwestern. 17 The attorney -- or the State, which I'll 18 talk about in a second, the State has moved to compel -- 19 or for sanctions in response to our motion for 20 protection, which my motion for protection is very 21 limited about preserving their objections, not trying to 22 get heard the line-by-line of the objections, but their 23 response treats it like a motion to compel and seeks 24 sanctions against UT Southwestern and me. But that's -- 25 that shows the problem of how the State is taking action
1 against them. And remember, in H, it's when an agency 2 of the State, not the State, and so that's why the -- 3 this is in the attorney general's own name. 4 And I will add two other little bits about 5 this. The -- if we look to the DTPA, the DTPA, the 6 legislature gave the consumer products finance -- 7 consumer protection division -- sorry, it slipped me. 8 The DBA under 1747 gives the consumer protection 9 division of the AG the ability to bring suit, quote, on 10 behalf of the State for violations of the DTPA. 11 The statute that is the first cause of 12 action here, doesn't have that on behalf of the State. 13 It delegates to the attorney general to bring suits for 14 violation of this, this -- the anti-trans care bill. 15 And so my argument is if you just compare the two 16 statutes, the anti-trans care bill is the attorney 17 general bringing a lawsuit in his own name because he's 18 not told to bring it on behalf of the State like he is 19 in the DTPA. 20 And so while that gets blended around in 21 this case because they have two -- or three claims, two 22 DTPA violations, as I understand it, and the violation 23 of State law in the trans bill, that -- there is at 24 least the attorney general, by issuing the -- by issuing 25 the subpoenas in the trans care litigation, by -- by
1 taking action of the declaratory judgment, by seeking to 2 compel records from UT Southwestern, that is, in 3 essence, the conflict of interest that the legislature 4 preordained that existed now. That's why I think that 5 we're at that point of that's the conflict. 6 THE COURT: Any additional response, 7 Counsel? 8 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor, I want to 9 clarify. 10 So a good chunk at the beginning of that 11 argument was spent on the substance of the subpoenas and 12 protection and this, that, and the other thing and -- 13 THE COURT: And I don't need you to address 14 that. I think that's a separate issue and I agree. 15 MS. KROMINGA: Okay. Secondly, to address 16 the utility of Section 16.01(h) of the General 17 Appropriations Act, it does not apply in this case. 18 Because what 16.01(h) says is that the attorney general 19 initiates legal action against another state 20 governmental entity on behalf of the attorney general 21 rather than another state governmental entity. 22 So the first issue here is that the 23 subpoenas in this case were issued on behalf -- or I 24 apologize -- not issued on behalf of the attorney 25 general. They were issued on behalf of the State of
1 Texas by its counsel, the consumer protection 2 division -- 3 THE COURT: So I think, if I'm not 4 misunderstanding, Counsel, is your argument the only 5 person who is authorized to bring the claims under the 6 laws at issue here, not the DTPA, but what you are 7 calling the anti-trans -- I'm only using your 8 verbiage -- 9 MR. WALSH: And I don't know that I would 10 describe -- 11 THE COURT: -- and it must be the AG's 12 office? Is that what your position is? 13 MR. WALSH: Correct. And one other little 14 snippet is, under H, it's a -- it's the AG bringing 15 action against a state entity -- a state agency other 16 than a state agency bringing an action against another 17 state agency. 18 So the conflict there is that the 19 legislature says doesn't exist is when one state agency 20 takes action against another state agency, so -- as my 21 client kind of explained it. And so say the Texas 22 Funeral Board has a problem with UT Southwestern and 23 brings a claim. It's okay in that scenario for AG 24 representation and AG representation in theory. I'm not 25 saying that that's a -- that that's it. But in theory,
1 that's not a conflict because that's two agencies 2 slugging it out. We can deal with that. 3 What this is talking about is when the 4 State or the AG on his own behalf brings an action, and 5 that's what I'm saying happened here, is the AG has 6 brought an action and that's what we're left with. 7 MS. KROMINGA: Right. And we would just 8 point the Court back to the express language of 16(h) -- 9 01(h), which says the -- on behalf of the attorney 10 general, which did not happen in this case. And so to 11 address the point about the non-DTPA claim that was 12 brought -- again, I'm not involved in the merits, but 13 what I do know is that even if the Court were to accept 14 that argument, which we don't agree that that statute, 15 which is the Texas Health and Safety Code 161.706, we 16 would not argue that that -- that limits a cause of 17 action only to the attorney general to bring. 18 However, if the Court wanted to follow that 19 logic, 16.01(h) still would not apply in this motion 20 because 16.01(h) says that if the legislature's 21 determined a conflict under the -- an example that was 22 given by 23 Mr. Walsh, which, again, we would agree the language 24 doesn't support, but even if. Even if there is a 25 conflict, even if they couldn't bring that, what the
1 language of H says is that the agency does not have to 2 seek approval by the attorney general to disseminate 3 funds. It does not -- there is nothing in H or 16.01 4 about retention of counsel. And specifically the case 5 law says that the language in the appropriations bill or 6 an act cannot modify the language of a specific law. So 7 the Texas Government Code Section 402.0212 still has to 8 be complied with irrespective of this 16.01(h). It does 9 not modify that requirement, and, therefore, UT 10 Southwestern did not have authority to retain Mr. Walsh. 11 THE COURT: So I think I need to provide 12 counsel an opportunity to review the case that you've 13 provided so that he can respond and the Court has the 14 benefit of the argument. Obviously I've not read the 15 reply either, and so I'm going to give you an 16 opportunity to place any arguments you have related to 17 that case on the record. 18 MR. WALSH: Okay. Do you want to go off 19 the record now, or do you want to deal with something 20 else while I read the case and Mr. Anderson pays 21 attention? Whatever is efficient for you. 22 THE COURT: I would like to deal with other 23 things. We're going to talk about whether or not we can 24 do that. But I want to provide you an opportunity, 25 okay?
1 MR. WALSH: Thank you, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: So we're going to go ahead and 3 go off the record just for a second. 4 (Discussion off the record) 5 THE COURT: At this time we're going to be 6 back on the record. We're going to stand down on 7 hearing any further regarding the motion to show 8 authority until such time as we get some additional 9 information from the AG's office and UT Southwestern has 10 an opportunity to review the case provided by the AG's 11 office. 12 So we're going to go ahead and turn at this 13 time to the remaining motions. The State's emergency 14 motion for protection, the nonparty patients' verified 15 expedited motion to stay production from the hospital 16 systems, and then as well, let's see, I've got UT 17 Southwestern's motion for protection and then Children's 18 motion for protective order, and I think that takes all 19 of it. Obviously, they're all so interrelated, I'm not 20 sure that it makes more sense to start with one versus 21 the other. 22 So I think we'll just go round-robin, which 23 means, State, we'll begin with you in connection with 24 the motion for protection. I would just ask, after you 25 argue the motion for protection that you've
1 affirmatively asserted, if you can go ahead and kind of 2 cover for the Court the arguments you make in response 3 to the other motions that we're going to hear on and 4 then we'll go from there to UT Southwestern, to the 5 nonparty patients to the extent that everybody wants to 6 argue. Okay? 7 MR. FARQUHARSON: You are asking for our 8 response to the -- to Children's and UT Southwestern's? 9 THE COURT: Basically I want you to go 10 ahead and present all your arguments and then we're 11 going to round-robin this, okay? Everybody will get a 12 chance, and then we'll come back to you and you can make 13 any additional points. 14 MR. FARQUHARSON: If it's okay with the 15 Court, what I will do is I will start off with our 16 motion for protection and then I will defer to Mr. Stone 17 to address the other arguments. 18 THE COURT: That sounds great. 19 MR. WALSH: Can I ask a question? 20 My motion for protection isn't the 21 line-by-line response I've got, so I don't know that we 22 need to deal with that until the Rule 12 is decided. 23 THE COURT: I was just saying it's the 24 other motions that the Court has to address, and I would 25 like, to the extent they have arguments, to hear what
1 they are. 2 MR. WALSH: Okay. 3 MR. FARQUHARSON: May I continue? 4 THE COURT: Please. 5 MR. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Judge. 6 So we believe that protection is 7 appropriate because what we have seen is that -- well, 8 number one, we have a -- we have a, as we mentioned 9 before, plea to the jurisdiction in Dallas County and a 10 plea in abatement in Dallas County that was initially 11 with respect to Lau. It is now with respect to both 12 Dr. Lau and Dr. Cooper. The Dr. Cooper -- so Dr. Lau, 13 again, last time -- 14 THE COURT: Have y'all filed or requested 15 transfer in either of those cases or only a plea in 16 abatement? 17 MR. FARQUHARSON: When you say transfer, 18 within Dallas County or to transfer everything here? 19 THE COURT: Within Dallas County to 20 transfer here. 21 MR. FARQUHARSON: No, we have not filed a 22 motion to transfer venue. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. FARQUHARSON: With respect to Dr. Lau, 25 the Court heard those. We -- we appealed the plea to
1 the jurisdiction. And I think that it demonstrates the 2 problem and it demonstrates why we asked for protection, 3 is that on February 28th when we were here, the Court 4 explicitly -- and I looked back at the February 28th 5 transcript -- the Court explicitly said, "I'm ordering 6 production on March 11th because I understand there is a 7 hearing on March 12th in Dallas County." 8 What the nonparties did with that is they 9 leapfrogged this Court and they jumped -- they called 10 the Dallas County court, said how quickly can we get 11 this heard, and they got it heard on March 6th. That 12 was 11 days before we even needed to file an answer in 13 that lawsuit. So again, we ended up with two Dallas 14 County courts; now we have the court of appeals 15 involved. 16 What is happening is it is undermining the 17 entire purpose of sovereign immunity. The entire 18 purpose of sovereign immunity is so the State's 19 resources cannot be dragged thin, and that is what they 20 are doing. They are dragging us thin. The real issue 21 has become that substantively, the relief that they seek 22 is being -- this Court has already given the nonparty 23 patients the widest latitude of reasonable relief. 24 This is a case that is inherently about 25 medical records. Like, there is no world where a
1 reasonable -- reasonable relief is no medical records 2 whatsoever. The most reasonable relief to them is they 3 get an opportunity to review, they get an opportunity to 4 redact, and then they get an opportunity to submit for 5 an in-camera inspection. This Court has already given 6 that. So why are we -- I mean, literally the only other 7 issue is that in Dallas County they are asking a 8 complete stop. So it's -- the two motivations are a 9 complete stop and a different judge. That's really what 10 it boils down to. 11 And so I -- we believe that our plea to the 12 jurisdiction and our plea in abatement are very, very 13 strong. We have -- I believe the Court has our briefing 14 in Dallas County on those issues, but I want to advocate 15 because it was a -- we added it to our plea to the 16 jurisdiction with respect to Dr. Cooper. That case is 17 Nazari v. State. The citation to that is 497 S.W.3d 18 169. 19 What Nazari v. State says is that when we 20 are pursuing an enforcement -- when we are pursuing an 21 enforcement action for penalties, the state is not 22 waiving its sovereign immunity. So even in this case, 23 we have not waived our sovereign immunity. We have not 24 waived our sovereign immunity in Dallas. The cases that 25 they are relying on are cases about monetary damages,
1 where the State is in -- is in a lawsuit and it is 2 seeking affirmative relief and monetary damages. The 3 monetary damages and penalties for enforcement actions 4 are two very different things. We have not opened 5 ourselves up as general litigants, and so we retain 6 sovereign immunity both in Collin County and Dallas 7 County -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to stop you 9 just for a second because you're going into all the 10 jurisdictional issues, and one of the things you assert 11 in your motion is this is the court of dominant 12 jurisdiction. Certainly this is the court where the 13 underlying litigation is pending, and as a result, I get 14 to see all facets of the case as opposed to just slivers 15 or pieces. 16 The federal rules have an expressed 17 provision in their subpoena rules that deals with this. 18 So, you know, Rule 45(f) says, hey, if you've got 19 issuing court and you've got compliance court, what the 20 proper thing is to do is to have the compliance court 21 transfer it to the issuing court. And you can do that 22 one of two ways. You can either have the party who 23 filed a motion for protection or to quash the subpoena 24 agree, or you can ask the court itself to do it, which 25 is why I asked. You don't cite any cases related to --
1 surely this is not the first time that there has been a 2 conflict between the issuing court and the court where 3 the subpoena was served. 4 I didn't -- I wasn't able to and didn't 5 have sufficient time to do that research on my own, but 6 -- so that's what I'm asking. I mean, have you found 7 courts that have dealt with this issue before? You 8 know, Rule 45 says, hey, if it's impacting the 9 underlying litigation, yes, that's a proper time to 10 transfer. But are there any Texas cases that have said, 11 hey, Judge Nowak, the proper thing for you to do is to 12 look to the federal rules and how they've handled these 13 conflicts; or, hey, this is how other courts have 14 handled it? And you haven't given me any of that. 15 MR. FARQUHARSON: And, Judge, I want to -- 16 I want to -- first of all, I want to apologize. I want 17 to apologize for that. That goes back to the need for 18 protection and us being stretched thin. We are now 19 litigating this case in three different venues -- 20 THE COURT: I know. 21 MR. FARQUHARSON: -- and we have other 22 docket, so unfortunately, Johnathan and I had an 23 evidentiary hearing earlier this week. That stay got 24 extended an extra day as well. That's not an excuse, 25 but that -- but I wish I had given you more extensive
1 briefing on the point. 2 Our motion for protection is not an ask 3 that anything -- that the nonparty patients are arguing 4 be waived. It is simply that it be consolidated. We 5 want them to have their day in court, but we think it is 6 appropriate for that day in court to be in this court, 7 it sounds like consistent with the federal rule. 8 THE COURT: Okay. And so let me segue just 9 for a second. Nonparty patients, I assume I already 10 know the answer but I have to ask. You know, Rule 45 11 says, hey, if you've got two different places and it is 12 impacting litigation, the proper thing to do is to say, 13 hey, will you agree to transfer, and then if not, to 14 file a motion to transfer. 15 Are you aware of any authority regarding, 16 one, how Texas courts treat where there's this conflict 17 like we have here? I didn't see any in connection with 18 your expedited motion to stay production, so I'm just 19 asking. Do you -- are you aware of any authority of how 20 Texas state courts have handled this kind of conflict? 21 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, the authority that 22 we have about how these conflicts get handled the best 23 is probably In Re: Reed, which we cited. I have a copy 24 highlighted for the Court if you would like. 25 THE COURT: Do you have a copy for opposing
1 counsel? 2 MR. LOGAN: Yes. 3 THE COURT: Where did you cite In Re: 4 Reed? I saw In Re: Caruso and I saw Rule 176. 5 MR. LOGAN: It may be in one of our 6 supplements. 7 THE COURT: Let me look. 8 MR. LOGAN: Or it may be in our motion to 9 stay. 10 THE COURT: I don't see it in either of the 11 supplements. Can you just -- I read a lot of cases to 12 get ready, so I would like to know which -- which one is 13 it cited in. 14 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, it may not have 15 been in those two. It was in response to the advisory 16 file. I didn't provide a copy of it to Ms. Patterson. 17 THE COURT: So the Court and nobody has 18 received it, okay. 19 All right. So I'll go ahead and hear from 20 you. So my initial question was: Would you agree for 21 the protection to come up here so that we're not 22 fighting on three fronts? I assume if we did that, that 23 also resolves the appeal as well because everything 24 would be here in this court. So I mean, the query that 25 we have to ask is: Would the nonparty patients agree
1 for this Court to take up the motions for protection 2 that you filed before now two Dallas courts so that we 3 can streamline the case, reduce the cost and expense? 4 MR. LOGAN: Well, to start, the case in 5 Dallas was transferred to one court, so they're all 6 pending before the 95th so it's one court. 7 THE COURT: When did that happen? 8 MR. NGUYEN: Last Monday. 9 MR. LOGAN: Last Monday. 10 THE COURT: Okay. And is everybody aware 11 of that? 12 MR. FARQUHARSON: Is there an order? 13 MR. NGUYEN: Yes. 14 MR. LOGAN: I have not seen an order. 15 MR. NGUYEN: The Dallas County court 16 doesn't give notice of orders when the court issues 17 paper orders, and so you just have to refresh the docket 18 every day intermittently hoping that something new comes 19 up. And so we just happened to see it. 20 MR. FARQUHARSON: I will look. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Sounds great. So great. 22 Are we with Judge Purdy or Judge Parker? 23 MR. LOGAN: Judge Purdy. 24 THE COURT: Okay. And so we're in one 25 Dallas court and we're in one appeals court. If we're
1 here in this court, that takes out two courts. So do 2 y'all agree or do you not? 3 MR. LOGAN: No, Your Honor, our patients 4 aren't going to waive their right to proceed where their 5 subpoena was served. And one small clarification, too, 6 is even in the federal rules, it says that's only 7 appropriate in exceptional circumstances. 8 THE COURT: And the extraordinary 9 circumstances, because I did a lot of research, say 10 where there is creating a conflict between the 11 underlying litigation and the court, which undeniably at 12 this juncture it's creating conflict because we're 13 running this case, we're running the Dallas case, and 14 we're running the appeals case, which is costing 15 everybody lots of time and lots of money. And to your 16 argument, you're saying it's shutting down discovery 17 entirely in this case. So I -- I think it's probably 18 justified under the exceptional circumstances in the 19 federal rules, but your answer is no, we would not 20 agree? 21 MR. LOGAN: No, we would not. And, you 22 know, just to clarify on those points. We didn't file 23 an interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals. The 24 State did that. It made a decision that its priority 25 was to make sovereign immunity --
1 THE COURT: Wouldn't the State withdraw its 2 interlocutory appeal if all items were consolidated here 3 so that only one court is considering the issues? 4 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes. I think -- yes. 5 Subject to anything from Johnathan, that's what I would 6 say is yes, as long as every -- the nonparties are 7 agreeing that this Court has jurisdiction and can rule 8 on the relief they are asking for in Dallas County. 9 THE COURT: And again, I don't -- I'm not 10 looking at it -- you keep arguing a dominant 11 jurisdiction in our motion, and I think there are 12 specific mechanisms in the rules, and that's why I'm 13 asking this question. Because the nonparty patients' 14 counsel is not incorrect, but the Rule 176 specifically 15 says that he's entitled to file in two places. He could 16 have filed here or he could have filed there. So I 17 don't think anybody can argue that he filed in an 18 improper location. The federal rules just tell us, 19 okay, hey, if we wind up in two places and they're in 20 conflict, the way you approach that is you either ask 21 them to move it. He has declined. And then it says, 22 well, great. If they decline, then the next thing that 23 we're supposed to do is to ask the Dallas Court to 24 transfer. And at present, you have not done anything 25 similar to that, correct?
1 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes. And I don't think 2 that I can agree to the characterization that he can -- 3 they can sue us in Dallas County. The only way that he 4 brings us before the Dallas County court is by filing a 5 lawsuit against us. 6 THE COURT: Well, I recognize the arguments 7 you're making. I'm reading just the text of the rule. 8 The text of the rule authorizes protective orders to be 9 filed in two different locations. I understand the 10 State's position. I'm not disputing that position. I'm 11 just reading the text of the rule. 12 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes. The subject to it 13 doesn't say that sovereign immunity is waived is the 14 point. 15 THE COURT: Okay. And so as it relates to 16 the motion that I've got, you've got no cases for me at 17 present that say what have other courts done where there 18 has been this conflict? 19 MR. FARQUHARSON: Not right now. I do have 20 the Nazari v. State decision. I don't see this case -- 21 on a quick glance of this case, I don't see any mention 22 of a plea to the jurisdiction. I see a plea in 23 abatement is what I see. 24 THE COURT: The Court will try and get to 25 that to review. Okay. So no case law. So then let's
1 go ahead, and can you address then the nonparty 2 patients' verified expedited motion to stay? At 3 present, the Court has got a copy of the actual order 4 that was entered and it says as follows: The hospital 5 system shall not produce any documents to the State 6 until the interlocutory appeal reaches a final 7 resolution. 8 And so if I can hear from you in response 9 to the nonparty patients' motion to stay. 10 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, the Court has 11 already ordered production. The Court ordered 12 production on February 28th. And the Court also two 13 times, I believe -- this is a paraphrase -- that the 14 Court overruled both the nonparties' and Children's 15 objections to the extent that those objections conflict 16 with the orders relating to the first tranche of 17 production. 18 So that -- this is a moot issue. The Court 19 has already issued a ruling. And the motion for stay 20 was implicitly denied, given that the motion for stay 21 was filed on February 27th and the Court ordered 22 production on February 28th. Also, this is the point of 23 our interlocutory appeal is that that is a void or 24 voidable order because Dallas County had -- and I 25 actually think it sounds -- the Fifteenth Court of
1 Appeals decision -- order indicates that that is a void 2 order because all matters were stayed immediately 3 following our interlocutory appeal. 4 THE COURT: And so I'm looking at the 5 advisory that the Court was provided and the -- is this 6 the totality of the per curiam opinion? 7 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes. It's two pages. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. FARQUHARSON: Exhibit D, I believe, to 10 our advisory. 11 THE COURT: All right. Okay. Counsel, 12 anything further as it relates to the State's motion for 13 protection and any argument you have in response to the 14 nonparty patients' motion to stay? 15 MR. FARQUHARSON: I don't think so right 16 now, but initially -- initially you asked to address 17 everything and so -- 18 THE COURT: We'll go ahead and cabin and do 19 just these two pieces and move on from there. 20 Dr. Lau, any argument that you care to make 21 at this time? 22 MR. LEGG: No comment. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Dr. Cooper. 24 MS. HOLLAND: No comment, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. Let me go ahead and
1 ask at this time, Mr. Sutker? 2 MR. SUTKER: No, Your Honor, not as it 3 relates to this issue. I think it's going to bleed over 4 to the next one, though, so I think I -- it's better 5 addressed there. 6 THE COURT: And when you say you think it's 7 going to bleed over to the next one, can you tell me 8 what you think the next one is? Hopefully you and I 9 have the same idea, but I'd just like to confirm. 10 MR. SUTKER: Yeah. Just generally our 11 obligations with respect to the production while sitting 12 in the middle of two competing orders, and I think that 13 I'm sort of a passive listener right now and then it 14 bleeds into the protection order on what to do with the 15 medical records primarily in light of all of that. 16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 17 And then, UT Southwestern, I think -- 18 MR. WALSH: I would say the same thing 19 basically. 20 THE COURT: All right. And nonparty 21 patients? 22 MR. LOGAN: Yes, Your Honor. 23 So, you know, a few responses here, 24 particularly as it goes to the motion for protection. 25 One, the State cited no authority in its motion that
1 would suggest this Court would step in and determine the 2 jurisdiction of the Dallas County court, or would 3 determine what's currently under interlocutory appeal 4 here. Essentially what it's asking is is for this Court 5 to say, okay, this Court's going to make the 6 determination that sovereign immunity applies and, 7 therefore, the Dallas County cases must be abated, and 8 essentially, also, at the same time, would now be 9 depriving the court of appeals of its jurisdiction of 10 appeal because the controversy would no longer be there 11 underneath. 12 So it's a -- it's a really sort of 13 exceptional relief they're asking for. It's basically 14 an anti-suit injunction. And their proposed order is to 15 force us to go to Dallas County and dismiss lawsuits 16 that, as the Court noted -- not lawsuits but the actions 17 per the protective order -- and that as the Court noted, 18 were correctly brought under the black letter of the 19 rule -- the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure. 20 So that relief is just completely 21 unsupported. There is nothing there for it. And it 22 would require this Court to essentially become a court 23 of review for one of its sister courts and also step in 24 the way of the court of appeals that's looking at the 25 same issue right now.
1 The suggestion that we somehow leapfrogged 2 this Court is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is 3 we had before -- before we ever appeared in this court, 4 had filed our motion for protection in Dallas County. 5 When we came to this court, as the Court asked us to, we 6 met and conferred, we worked at length with the State. 7 The Court, of course, kindly assured us participating in 8 that process isn't going to -- 9 THE COURT: Mr. Logan, can I ask, what is 10 the most basic discovery that you can imagine taking 11 place in this case related to your clients' records? 12 MR. LOGAN: The most basic discovery? 13 THE COURT: The most basic discovery. What 14 is the records that there is no question the State would 15 have to ask for these records for their case to be able 16 to go forward? 17 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, certainly there are 18 records that are going to have to be -- 19 THE COURT: What? I'm asking for you to 20 specifically tell me. What do you think is the most 21 basic discovery that there is no question the State 22 would have to ask for? 23 MR. LOGAN: You know, I suppose that they 24 would have to ask for perhaps some redacted records that 25 had to do with the treatment of the patients. But the
1 question here isn't just whether records will ultimately 2 need to be produced; certainly they will. The question 3 is the extent to which the production is going to be 4 made and the amount of redactions that are appropriate 5 under the controlling law. 6 THE COURT: And how has this Court not 7 addressed that prior to the relief that you sought in 8 the Dallas County court by and through its order 9 confining the production of records to those from 10 January 1, 2022, through the present only for the 11 treatment offered by Lau and Cooper, only for medical 12 laboratory and billing, and extreme levels of redaction? 13 What else would you say that this Court has not 14 provided? 15 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, the problem is that 16 this Court hasn't been able to, because it's not in 17 front of it, adjudicate the objections and the 18 privileges asserted to the scope of the requests in the 19 subpoena. Certainly the Court's looked at this first 20 tranche and said, here is a link to them, they can do 21 these redactions. 22 The problem is the Court doesn't have 23 discretion right now, like In Re: Reed says, to order 24 productions while we have all of our objections pending 25 in Dallas County. So the concept of -- and the State
1 keeps trying to make it along the line of, oh, you're 2 just trying to go to Dallas County to get away from this 3 Court. That's not really different than saying, well, 4 they filed this in Collin County to get away from the 5 Dallas County courts. 6 Both parties, us and them, had a choice of 7 what venue to choose. I don't read any aspersions to 8 Dallas County in their choice that this is the venue for 9 their lawsuit, and there's no aspersions from our 10 patients in choosing the place where they live and where 11 their records are as the venue for protection. 12 THE COURT: I think my question is a little 13 different. What other protections would you actually be 14 able to get from the Dallas County beyond what I have 15 already said would be provided here? 16 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, we would be 17 seeking, and are seeking, in Dallas County an order that 18 would narrow the subpoenas themselves. In other words, 19 not just, okay, here's the first one and we'll revisit 20 some more later and maybe the next one is just all the 21 rest of the records. We want to have adjudicated our 22 objections to the scope of the request. So while we 23 offered with the State, and it declined, to go to Dallas 24 County and say, look, let's get a protective order in 25 place and we can start a first production consistent
1 with what we said, they refused. 2 So if it's a question of expediency, we 3 could just follow the rules and say there's a motion for 4 protection pending. Let's get the proposed order 5 entered there. Let's get production started. The fact 6 is the State's not worried about the rules or 7 expediency. It's worried about winning its fight about 8 not having our patients be able to choose their venue. 9 THE COURT: Couldn't the same be said for 10 you? 11 MR. LOGAN: No, because our patients had 12 that choice, just like they had a choice about where to 13 bring their lawsuit. 14 So beyond that, the sovereign immunity 15 argument just doesn't even apply here. This is a 16 procedural motion to challenge a subpoena. The Dallas 17 County court's already adjudicated that and denied. So 18 the Dallas County court's already determined it has 19 jurisdiction and that sovereign immunity does not apply. 20 They decided to file an interlocutory appeal. That 21 appeal looks like it's going to delay this case, but 22 that's a matter of priority for the State. If it wants 23 to go off to the court of appeals and create new law 24 about sovereign immunity and that delays the case here, 25 my clients certainly don't have any control over that.
1 If the State would like to get rid of that interlocutory 2 appeal and go get an order entered in the court that's 3 currently adjudicating the protective order motion, we 4 certainly can work with them to do that. 5 THE COURT: Say that least piece one more 6 time. 7 MR. LOGAN: If the State would like to 8 dismiss its interlocutory appeal and go get a protective 9 order entered in Dallas County, the court that currently 10 has jurisdiction over the subpoenas, we're happy to work 11 with them on that. That's the most expedient way to get 12 in an order that will get production started. 13 THE COURT: Anything further in connection 14 with the State's motion for protection? 15 MR. LOGAN: I didn't know if -- 16 THE COURT: No, to you. Because I think 17 you were arguing your stay. Anything further from you 18 in connection with the motion for protection that the 19 State has requested? 20 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, the only thing I 21 would add is that, you know, at every turn, including 22 this one, what the State's asking this Court to do is 23 make some new law. And obviously, I think it's -- 24 it's -- I'm not going to hide the ball that if there's 25 an anti-suit injunction entered against our clients that
1 we're going to be -- seek review because that's massive, 2 a massive hit to their procedural rights. So then we're 3 talking about further delay and more reviews instead of 4 simply just following the rules as they're written. So 5 that would be our point on the motion for protection. 6 THE COURT: Thank you. 7 Counsel, anything further from you? 8 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, I would just say 9 it is within the plenary power of this Court to order 10 whatever it sees fit. It has ordered the production. 11 It did not have -- it has ordered the production. And 12 to the extent that the -- again, this case that -- this 13 In Re: Reed case does not appear to address a plea to 14 the jurisdiction. To the extent the Court believes 15 otherwise and finds this case compelling, we would 16 simply ask for an opportunity to provide supplemental 17 briefing to address this case. 18 THE COURT: And I'm so sorry. Counsel, say 19 that last piece one more time. 20 MR. FARQUHARSON: To the extent this In Re: 21 Reed case, as I said, it does not appear to address a 22 plea to the jurisdiction and to the extent that the 23 Court finds it compelling, we would ask for an 24 opportunity to provide supplemental briefing to the 25 Court to address the case.
1 THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. 2 MR. LOGAN: Just a very brief reply to that 3 because he mentioned again something about conflicting 4 orders. Our understanding of this Court's orders were 5 that production would be prepared but there was not an 6 order yet for the documents to be produced as it goes to 7 tranche one. So at current, we don't have a belief that 8 there is a conflict of the orders unless the Court 9 further goes and -- 10 THE COURT: I think it depends on what you 11 define as production. So I'm looking at the order right 12 now related to -- I'm going to use the unrepresented 13 because there was obviously one order that was entered 14 as it related to the unrepresented patients and one 15 entered as it related represented. 16 In the prior conversation, I withdrew the 17 instruction regarding rolling productions to begin on 18 March the 11th and ordered all documents to be prepared 19 for production by March the 21st. On that date, though, 20 the records are intended to be produced by Children's 21 Medical and UT Southwestern to Doctors Lau, Dr. Cooper, 22 and for your clients, to you. So to the extent that you 23 don't deem that production, then I suppose that portion 24 of the order does not, but the records would be leaving 25 UT Southwestern and Children's and so, yes, I did order
1 production. 2 MR. LOGAN: We understood the Court's 3 March 7th -- or maybe it's March 6th -- oral order to 4 supercede that and simply say let's get it prepared for 5 production but have a hearing on the 20th and we'll be 6 prepared to produce on the 21st. I only ask because I 7 do need to know if there's a conflicting order, if 8 there's an actual order -- 9 THE COURT: Well, I didn't revoke anything 10 other than my instruction to prepare the records and to 11 begin producing prior to the 11th. So at present, I 12 haven't withdrawn any of the other provisions. I set 13 this hearing today so that I had the benefit of all the 14 arguments, and should I choose to revoke my prior order, 15 I have the ability to do so. But on our prior 16 conversation, the only revocation that was made was to 17 withdraw the rolling production. So no documents have 18 been produced at present, but I didn't withdraw the 19 remaining pieces. 20 MR. LOGAN: Thank you for the 21 clarification. 22 THE COURT: I mean, I think -- I just need 23 to clarify. When you say production, does that to you 24 mean to the State, or does that also mean the records 25 leaving the hospitals and going to you?
1 MR. LOGAN: Yes, Your Honor. Anything that 2 would have the hospitals, you know, release their 3 control of the records or even, you know, essentially, 4 you know, decide what should or shouldn't be redacted 5 before our objections and assertion of privileges have 6 been ruled on, we would obviously object to. 7 THE COURT: All right. I think that I've 8 heard everything on those two motions. Are you 9 prepared -- okay? Yes. 10 MR. LOGAN: I don't know that we've been 11 heard actually on our motion to stay. I know the Court 12 asked us to talk about the motion for protection. 13 THE COURT: That was intended to be if you 14 had any pieces on the stay, I thought that's what you 15 were also discussing. So if you have additional points 16 you want to make on the stay, by all means, this is your 17 time. 18 MR. LOGAN: Okay. Well, on the motion to 19 stay, Your Honor, what we're actually trying to avoid is 20 the kind of conflict that came up in In Re: Reed, for 21 instance, which is where you have a court that is 22 currently adjudicating a motion for protection, and 23 accordingly, the nonparty patients have not had their 24 objections or their privileges adjudicated by any court. 25 Their motion isn't pending here for this Court to even
1 adjudicate it. So cases like In Re: Reed instruct the 2 subpoena is stayed and that it may even be an abuse of 3 discretion to order productions when that is pending in 4 a sister court, as it is here. 5 What the State is suggesting, to go ahead 6 and produce anyway, sort of eviscerates the rule. 7 Because if the trial court can simply say, well, I know 8 you filed something in another court seeking protection, 9 but I'm going to go ahead and order production anyway, 10 there's really no meaningful way to seek protection in 11 the county where the subpoenas were served. And what 12 we're trying to avoid with our motion to stay is that 13 exact conflict. We're not saying we don't want anything 14 produced. We've never said that in this case. But our 15 clients have made a valid choice under the rules to seek 16 protection in Dallas County. We're asking for that to 17 be respected. We're happy to work with the State to get 18 production started out of Dallas County, but if we're 19 going to have to go through this whole process of an 20 interlocutory appeal, that's going to take some time. 21 But that's up to the State. That's not up to us. 22 THE COURT: Anything further, Counsel? 23 MR. LOBAN: Just that the last part is the 24 State has said several times, I think even today, that 25 the Court, you know, overruled our motion to stay or
1 denied it. When we went on the record, I went back and 2 looked at the transcript. You know, the Court said, 3 well, they said they didn't have notice, so, you know, 4 we're not going to get to that today. If the Court -- 5 and all I'm asking for is clarification. If the Court 6 did deny or intended to deny our motion for stay, we 7 would just like that clarification. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further? 9 MR. LOGAN: That's all. 10 THE COURT: Okay. State, anything further 11 from you? 12 MR. FARQUHARSON: Very quickly. The 13 conflict was not created in this court. This Court had 14 an order. The conflict was created from them expediting 15 their hearing. So this Court did not create a conflict 16 and is not going to create a conflict. It's just 17 following through on its orders. 18 THE COURT: I recognize y'all have a very 19 different position on that. I think you've memorialized 20 that you disagree with what he just said. 21 MR. LOGAN: Well, I think it's important to 22 say here that when the Court issued that ruling on 23 February 28th, the motion for protection was already 24 pending in Dallas County. 25 THE COURT: All right. At this juncture
1 are we ready to go back to the Rule 12? Were you able 2 to get clarification on your end? If not, again, no 3 problem whatsoever. Just asking if you were. 4 MS. KROMINGA: No, in that I wasn't able to 5 get an individual attorney, but the question then 6 becomes we -- we provided the agency an agency with -- 7 or sorry -- a division with which UT Southwestern has 8 worked previously. So if UT Southwestern has a specific 9 attorney that they're uncomfortable with, we would 10 welcome that information to pass it along as part of 11 this request, but I really don't trust their -- 12 THE COURT: Can we phrase it differently? 13 If there's a particular attorney that they feel very 14 comfortable with, could they do that as opposed to the 15 opposite? 16 MS. KROMINGA: Sure, that -- sure, that's 17 fine. I guess the purpose -- 18 THE COURT: It seems to me that's more 19 positive. 20 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, yes. 21 -- was why is the division not enough 22 information, is there a reason. And that was -- that 23 was that. But yes, I will flip it around in the 24 positive. If there is an AAG with which UT Southwestern 25 feels comfortable with in that division, we would pass
1 that along. 2 THE COURT: Okay. And your response to the 3 case they provided. 4 MR. WALSH: Sure. So, first of all, it's 5 an agency versus agency case where the two agencies have 6 some dispute that they're trying to resolve. That was 7 my example of the funeral board having a claim against 8 UT Southwestern. That's not the legislative conflict 9 that exists under H, right, and so it -- the case is 10 inapplicable in that it's not the State or the AG 11 bringing something against UT Southwestern, which is 12 what's occurring here. 13 The second thing I would say, even in this 14 case, it doesn't stand for the proposition that they're 15 really even talking about there. It says, because we -- 16 and this is on page 5 at -- at the very bottom of page 17 5 -- 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. WALSH: -- where it's bold -- it has 20 the bold, page 126 from the case. 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MR. WALSH: Because we base our decision 23 solely upon the language of the PURA, which is a 24 specific statute, and the SGPSCA, another specific 25 statute, we do not address the attorney general's
1 contentions that his dual representation of opposing 2 agency does not create a conflict of interest. While 3 our decision is consistent in result with decisions of 4 other state courts that have permitted dual 5 representation, we express neither approval nor 6 disapproval of these authorities. If dual 7 representation does, in fact, create a conflict of 8 interest, it's a prolem of the legislature's creation 9 and one that the legislature must resolve. And my point 10 about that is, we have the resolution in 16.01(h) at 11 least with regard to when the AG takes action against 12 the state agency, which it has with the declaratory 13 judgment, the motion to compel/sanctions, with the 14 subpoenas that are directly adverse to the UT 15 Southwestern's institutional interest. That's where we 16 get that they have taken direct action against us, 17 triggering the conflict resolution in 16.01(h). 18 THE COURT: Any additional final points? 19 MS. KROMINGA: Yes, Your Honor. Just to 20 address the case, and I'll address 16.01(h) again. But 21 what the Court was reviewing was language within two 22 specific statutory provisions which authorize the 23 attorney general to represent these agencies. And it -- 24 and it says that -- based on the letter of the law when 25 you look at those statutes, it says that the attorney
1 general shall represent those agencies. So yes, it is 2 specific to those in that sense, but, Your Honor, when 3 you look at -- we can -- we can apply that here because 4 when you look at the Texas Government Code, it says, the 5 attorney general shall provide legal services for a 6 state agency for which the attorney general determines 7 those legal services are appropriate. And so it's a 8 shall shall. It's been -- the attorney general has a 9 duty. The agency has an obligation under the Texas 10 Government Code to seek that representation or to seek 11 an effective waiver of that representation by getting 12 outside counsel, and again, as the opposing counsel just 13 read, the court there said even if. Even if dual 14 representation did create a conflict, it's one of the 15 legislature's own making and one that they must resolve. 16 And so they said the Court could not resolve that and it 17 even gave an entire paragraph -- 18 THE COURT: So what do we do if there's a 19 conflict and you're saying, hey, the legislature must 20 resolve it? 21 MS. KROMINGA: Right. Well, you would -- 22 as I read this case, so you can go -- it's the 23 third-to-last full paragraph in the case, but they said 24 there are many alternative ways of ensuring an adversary 25 proceeding in this case where the AG is representing
1 both the agency -- first, a statute authorizing does not 2 close the mouth of the agency or the ears of the court 3 where there are complaints. 4 And I don't need to read that whole 5 paragraph to the Court, but basically the way I read 6 this opinion is that the Court is saying, when the AG is 7 authorized or required and has a duty to represent an 8 agency or an agency has a statutory duty, this is 9 consistent with statutory construction, right. We 10 cannot read language into the statute. And nothing in 11 the response by UT Southwestern -- they didn't even 12 address the Texas Government Code in the response. So 13 there has been nothing to address the requirement that 14 they seek approval by the AG's office, and there's 15 nothing in this case or others that says, oh, well, 16 being uncomfortable with dual representation inherently 17 creates a conflict. Again, they point to one provision 18 of the appropriations act which deals with conflicts 19 related to funds, issuance of funds, nothing to do with 20 representation and retaining outside counsel. 21 And the last point I'll make, which we 22 raised in our reply brief, is that, you know, we can 23 look at -- Texas law does contemplate this and recognize 24 that there are instances when State actors might be 25 adverse in litigation. For example, under the Texas
1 Civil Practice and Remedies Code 104.004(c), it says, It 2 is not a conflict of interest for the attorney general 3 to defend a person under this chapter and also to 4 prosecute a legal action against the person as required 5 or authorized by law if different assistant attorneys 6 general are assigned the responsibility of each. And in 7 Cofer, the Honorable Wallace pointed out that, yes, 8 these statutory constitutional powers invested in one 9 attorney general, but it's effectuated through many 10 assistants, so. 11 THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. 12 One final opportunity. I just want to make 13 sure I'm not cutting you short. Do you have anything 14 else you would like to place upon the record? 15 MR. WALSH: Yeah. I would just -- we seem 16 to be glossing over 16.01 and what it actually says 17 about the conflict when the AG is bringing -- the AG of 18 the state, right. It's -- it's addressing situations 19 that are not this -- this Cofer case because it's not 20 agency versus agency, and this isn't agency versus 21 agency. And I would say that if Children's, instead of 22 hiring Mr. Sutker, decided that it wanted to hire 23 Winston Strawn, who also represents the patients, we 24 would all say, Winston Strawn can't represent the 25 patients and then decide what records to be produced
1 under the subpoenas because that's the inherent conflict 2 of interest. And that's what we have here of the clear 3 conflict of interest, at least in regard to the 4 patients. I have also made the argument about the 5 employees, et cetera, but my point is 16.01(h), 6 legislature has resolved this very scenario as the Cofer 7 case suggested the legislature needs to do, and it did. 8 THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. 9 All right. At this time the Court declines 10 again to strike the objections and responses of UT 11 Southwestern. I further decline to find waiver by the 12 AG's office, and I reject all arguments that have been 13 made by UT Southwestern save and except for conflicts 14 arguments. The Court's going to review the cases cited 15 in the reply. I've not had an opportunity to review it, 16 and since that wound up being the focus of the hearing, 17 I require an opportunity to do so. 18 As well, UT Southwestern, I think you 19 should have an opportunity to file a sur-reply if you 20 desire. So you may file a sur-reply on or before March 21 the 24th, no more than five pages in length addressing 22 those cases. I stay any further obligation to produce 23 by UT Southwestern in light of the AG's statement here 24 today that they will not confer upon Mr. Walsh authority 25 to produce any additional documents in connection with
1 this cause pending resolution of this particular motion. 2 I direct current counsel for UT 3 Southwestern to further confer with the AG's office 4 related to the administrative law division and 5 specifically whether there is a person within the 6 division that UT Southwestern would be comfortable with 7 and after further consultation with UT Southwestern 8 client. 9 Let me just ask at this time, UT 10 Southwestern, any questions whatsoever related to the 11 Court's ruling? Any request for clarification? 12 MR. WALSH: No, other than getting a copy 13 of the transcript. 14 THE COURT: I can't promise that you're 15 going to get a copy before this briefing is due. We are 16 slammed, and I can't promise you that that's going to 17 happen, okay? So do you need me to repeat it again, or 18 do you feel comfortable that you understand what you 19 have to do by Monday? 20 MR. WALSH: Yes, ma'am. 21 THE COURT: All right. So you've got two 22 things you've got to do, right? You've got to confer 23 with the AG's office after talking with your client, and 24 then as well, you've got to file a sur-reply if you want 25 to. You don't have to. You're not obligated. But
1 certainly I want to provide you that opportunity. 2 AG, any questions regarding the Court's 3 ruling at present? 4 MR. LOGAN: Nothing further, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. And a query as to does 6 it make sense to enter an interim order related to the 7 grounds the Court has declined to adopt or rejected? If 8 you would like to wait until the totality of the Court's 9 ruling, I'm happy to do that. I'm just inquiring what 10 y'all's preference is. Sometimes it's helpful when 11 talking with clients, sometimes it's not. Y'all just 12 have to tell me what you want. Okay? All right. 13 So in light of that, I think it's not 14 appropriate for the Court to take up UT Southwestern's 15 motion at present because we really do have to resolve 16 this issue, and I've found that there will be no 17 additional production at present by UT Southwestern, so 18 we'll go ahead and table that. I think that takes us to 19 the only remaining motion on the table is the Children's 20 motion. Am I correct? 21 MR. SUTKER: Your Honor, it's Cory Sutker 22 for Children's. I think you're right. I'll sit on the 23 motion. I don't know that there's a lot of dispute in 24 light of where conversations were headed before the 25 Dallas County proceedings where I had talked to -- to
1 Mr. Stone and the group on credentialing information and 2 e-mails and just having time to sit down together to 3 come up with search terms and things like that. I think 4 we're in agreement related to production provided we can 5 narrow the playing field. So that my only other real 6 issue today is still where do I stand in the middle of 7 competing orders between Dallas and Collin County and 8 with the venue motion before the Court? I don't know 9 where the Court's going to come down on that, obviously, 10 but if venue ends up in Dallas County, where does that 11 leave me in that court's eyes if I produce documents. 12 And then, more importantly, this production -- the venue 13 production wasn't easy in and of itself and I became the 14 redacting side for both parties after exchanging. These 15 new records are way more voluminous -- 16 THE COURT: What's the volume? 17 MR. SUTKER: Well, I have today 3600 pages 18 still to go through and -- 19 THE COURT: And the total? 20 MR. SUTKER: And that's -- and I think -- I 21 think we have 12 -- 10 or 12 patients done. And because 22 even with the more limited redactions, there is so much 23 information within paragraphs and within pages and -- 24 and I know, no matter what my office does, just knowing 25 how much we fought over pharmacy addresses, no matter
1 what I do, it's going to be a fight, a redaction fight. 2 And I'd be remiss to my client if I didn't mention that 3 this is costing them thousands of dollars just to be the 4 redacting agency for these two parties -- or three 5 parties' disputes, which is -- it is what it is. I'm 6 acting under the Court's order in that regard. 7 But even by tomorrow, certainly we could 8 start rolling production and get some records out and 9 start letting people get that done, but I still have a 10 very -- my level of comfort in doing that in light of 11 Dallas County's order is -- is not there. And I did 12 also, Your Honor, understand from our phone call after 13 Dallas County -- Dallas County hearing was that the 14 order was to get the records prepared, which we are 15 still doing, and one reason Ms. Cooper is not here is 16 because she's at home redacting. But that's, I guess, 17 kind of putting that all out there for now, some 18 comment. 19 But I do think with regard to the rest of 20 the subpoenas, if Mr. Stone and I had time to sit down, 21 I think we could come up with search terms with respect 22 to e-mails. And I've explained to him the credentialing 23 privilege but just said what information is it that you 24 need because that probably can exist outside the 25 credentialing privilege or at least I can find out if it
1 does. 2 THE COURT: And that relates to the items 3 that we've discussed in what I call subpoena number two, 4 I believe. 5 MR. SUTKER: Yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. And my understanding is 7 you and Mr. Stone are already going to get together 8 early next week so we can address the patient notice 9 issue. So are y'all able to wrap this conversation into 10 that? 11 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor, we can. 12 Could we go off the record, though, so I 13 can ask you a question that I think might help us? 14 THE COURT: Yes, absolutely. Let's go 15 ahead and go off the record. 16 (Discussion held off the record) 17 THE COURT: Mr. Stone, at this time if you 18 can restate your question. 19 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor. The State -- 20 picking up on what Mr. Logan mentioned a few minutes 21 ago, he kind of got me thinking and I wanted to see what 22 it would look like with this Court if we were to 23 withdraw our current subpoenas to the hospitals. That 24 would moot out the Dallas action. It would moot out the 25 appeal. We wouldn't have multiple courts issuing
1 multiple rulings. And then instead, we would work with 2 the hospitals, we could work with the parties and try to 3 produce narrow requests, just like we did with the first 4 tranche, to this Court, and the Court can hear from all 5 the parties, hear objections, and then issue orders to 6 the hospital to produce. This way we're not having this 7 battle with different courts issuing different rulings. 8 It's just that -- I'm just curious if this would even be 9 within the realm of possibility. 10 THE COURT: So let me kind of refine your 11 question, Mr. Stone, and we're going to hear first, I 12 think, from Mr. Logan. 13 So you're proposing what if we withdrew the 14 subpoenas, and if we do, then that entirely moots the 15 motions for protection that have been filed in Dallas 16 County because there is no longer any live subpoenas. 17 And instead, we would represent to Mr. Logan as an 18 initial matter, the only request that we would actually 19 serve would be -- and I'm going to use roll one just as 20 an example because that's what we've been working on -- 21 we would serve a request only for the documents that are 22 contemplated by roll one. Then after that, we would sit 23 down and we would have a multiparty conference to say, 24 hey, here are the other things that we might like, what 25 are your thoughts on that, can we reach a resolution
1 regarding what additional records all parties agree, and 2 that would reduce the amount of expense to everyone. 3 Am I correctly paraphrasing, Mr. Stone, 4 what your proposal is? 5 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. And then I guess we 7 would need your response. If they were to withdraw, 8 agree, at present, the only request that would be made 9 as it relates to patient records is what we have all 10 been kind of discussing and the framework and anything 11 beyond that, they wouldn't ask now. They would say, can 12 we sit down and have a conference with you so that we 13 can be certain that anything else we're all on the same 14 page on. 15 MR. LOGAN: No, Your Honor. I mean, this 16 is a mechanism to avoid the patients' rights to 17 challenge the subpoena is unworkable. The only 18 mechanism in the rules for requesting medical records is 19 under 205. It has a specific provision that says 20 subpoenas have to be served on the patients, the people, 21 so -- 22 THE COURT: I think they're proposing to 23 re-serve a subpoena but saying the only subpoena that 24 would be served would be confined to the very small 25 tranche of medical records that we're discussing and
1 there would be no additional subpoenas that would be 2 served until after they had an opportunity to confer 3 with you. 4 MR. LOGAN: No, Your Honor, we would not 5 support circumventing the jurisdiction that Dallas 6 County has already taken of the subpoenas that are in 7 front of it. If they're going to re-serve additional 8 subpoenas in this case, we're obviously going to look at 9 those and see if we need to challenge them as well. But 10 the subpoenas that are in Dallas County area there. 11 Now, if they withdraw them, the best I know, there is 12 actually no obligation anymore for anyone to produce 13 anything and we start back over because any productions 14 have to be under a subpoena. 15 THE COURT: I don't disagree with you on 16 that. I think the State is trying to meet you in a 17 place that would make your patients comfortable. Do you 18 have a counterproposal? 19 MR. LOGAN: I do. If the State would like 20 to meet me in a place that makes my patients 21 comfortable, they should meet me in Dallas County, 22 because that's where they filed their motion for 23 protection. I'm happy to put in a narrow first order 24 like this. We can go and ask the court to do it 25 tomorrow, but they don't want to be there. And I can't
1 do anything about that. 2 THE COURT: Okay. So I don't think I 3 understand. When you say enter it in Dallas County, 4 you're saying have them submit to the jurisdiction, 5 transfer these causes down to Dallas? 6 MR. LOGAN: No, not at all, Your Honor. 7 What I'm saying is the subpoenas are currently being 8 adjudicated in Dallas County. If they want to first 9 narrow production under the subpoenas, all we have to do 10 is ask for the Dallas County Court to order that. 11 THE COURT: But that's not what they're 12 saying. They're saying we're going to stop everything 13 as it relates to the existing subpoenas so there's no 14 concern regarding the overbreadth. 15 MR. LOGAN: The Court asked what I thought 16 an appropriate middle ground would be. The middle 17 ground would be to ask for that first production to be 18 ordered out of Dallas County. 19 THE COURT: But if they withdraw those 20 subpoenas, they'll be mooted, and there won't be 21 anything for that Court to preside over. 22 MR. LOGAN: And then if they issue new 23 subpoenas, I suppose we'll have a new dispute. 24 MR. STONE: Why can't this Court issue 25 orders? Like, why can't this Court just order
1 production from the -- from the hospitals? I mean, 2 that's kind of where I'm at. Like, I'm wondering if 3 that's a possibility. I haven't -- again, I haven't 4 researched. I'm trying to find solutions here that -- 5 that make this easier. 6 THE COURT: And I appreciate it, Mr. Stone. 7 I think at this juncture, you know, the hospitals, the 8 doctors, the State, at least as it relates to this 9 initial production, are all on the same page. And so at 10 present, the nonparty patients are the only ones who we 11 don't have a general framework with. I don't know the 12 answer to that question, Mr. Stone. And so I guess the 13 query I have at this time is: Are you going to be 14 withdrawing those subpoenas, because certainly it will 15 impact our proceedings today, or are you going to, I 16 guess, leave the subpoenas present? So I just need to 17 know, hey, having had this idea, are you going to go 18 ahead and say, I withdraw those prior subpoenas, we're 19 going to serve new subpoenas in connection with notice 20 on the patients for just that one small tranche of 21 records? 22 MR. STONE: No, Your Honor. We'll -- we'll 23 just proceed forward. It sounds like even if we did 24 that, they would file another lawsuit in Dallas and 25 we're just going to delay things and be right back where
1 we started. So let's go ahead and -- I think we'll go 2 ahead and proceed. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Sutker, is there anything 4 else that you would like to place upon the record at 5 this time? 6 MR. SUTKER: Specifically, I mean, I think 7 I've addressed it all. I, again, just want to mention 8 for digestion sake and trying to figure out what to do 9 about this later, that this -- the burden and cost on 10 Children's as a nonparty has been immense and will be 11 when it comes down to mining e-mails as well. And I 12 really -- I think this -- I would like to figure out if 13 there's a better mechanism in play with respect to 14 Children's through my office and folks who work for me, 15 try to decide what redactions make sense in light of the 16 Court's previous guardrails, and then I get responses 17 back from the doctors, patients, or the patients' 18 attorneys on, well, we think this information should be 19 redacted, too, and at that point, my firm's just 20 becoming a glorified, like I said, redacting machine, 21 which is -- is time consuming and then we -- 22 THE COURT: And I don't think in 23 contemplation with any additional documents. It was 24 just the motion to transfer venue that we had 25 contemplated that. In fact, I mean, I believe that the
1 orders previously entered by the Court -- oh, no, it 2 does have further redactions requested by counsel for 3 Dr. Cooper as opposed to transferring the 4 responsibility. 5 MR. SUTKER: And so in that regard, what we 6 didn't address was logistics. And one of my thoughts on 7 that was electronically I can send records over with 8 what I've been -- we'll call soft redactions, meaning 9 the redactions are kind of outlined but they don't get 10 applied -- and sending those over to the appropriate 11 attorneys. If they want to add their own redactions in, 12 that's great. They can add them in and then save 13 another set that will have competing sets. 14 But I think just based on my own review of 15 these records and knowing what disputes have been 16 existing so far, it would be a laundry list coming from 17 each side of what we think should be redacted in 18 addition to what we're already redacting, and I think 19 just for efficiency sake, the representatives for those 20 patients or those patients' privilege should have the 21 opportunity to just add those redactions in versus 22 trying to make them come back to us and continue to just 23 have all these evolving sets of redactions. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Stone, is there any 25 objection by the State?
1 MR. STONE: No, Your Honor. We think that 2 makes sense. If they're going to make the redactions, 3 it's duplicative. If they mark it but then don't redact 4 it, it's -- I think it totally makes sense to have them 5 just do the redactions themselves. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, if I could, to add 8 on to Mr. Stone's earlier point. I would be curious 9 whether or not Children's, on the record, if we were to 10 submit a DWQ to Children's and Children -- without a 11 subpoena, and Children's were to say, we will respond to 12 your DWQ without a subpoena, it seems to me the nonparty 13 patients would not have standing to contest that in 14 Dallas County. They could make challenges here or they 15 could -- they could enter into the DWQ. But I think 16 it's a question that Mr. Sutker may be able resolve. 17 THE COURT: Mr. Sutker. 18 MR. SUTKER: I guess I don't understand the 19 process exactly, but if there's -- from what I heard, if 20 there's a DWQ served upon me and there's -- you know, 21 working through whatever objections there would be to 22 breadth and everything else, but along the same line of 23 where things are headed, I would obviously comply with 24 the obligations that are thrust upon my client with 25 respect to answering that information. What that means
1 logistically for everybody and their rights, I -- I 2 don't know that I can speak to that. 3 MR. FARQUHARSON: So I think the question 4 is: Would you -- would you be willing to respond to a 5 DWQ in the court without a subpoena? 6 MR. SUTKER: The DWQ just seeking medical 7 records? 8 MR. FARQUHARSON: The records contemplated 9 by tranche one. 10 MR. SUTKER: Yeah. I mean, I guess, as I 11 sit here initially, I don't -- I firmly -- I personally 12 don't have a problem with that concept, but I guess I 13 need to think about that and make sure that I run that 14 through the appropriate people before I would speak for 15 them. 16 THE COURT: Sir, are you asking for a 17 recess? 18 MR. SUTKER: I -- I guess I am. If 19 that's -- if that's the proposal on the table, I'm 20 either asking for a recess to confer with my client on 21 that issue. Alternatively, I am asking for an extension 22 of -- well -- or if I'm in the position of records need 23 to start going out the door tomorrow despite the two 24 competing orders, then I'm asking for an extension of 25 additional time to start rolling production on those
1 records, because when I first addressed this with the 2 Court on the 26th and the 28th, I had no idea what kind 3 of volume we were -- we were looking at, which I have 4 clarity on that issue. 5 THE COURT: We're going to stand in recess 6 for a period of ten minutes. That will permit the State 7 to confer on their end; nonparty patients, on yours; 8 and, Mr. Sutker, for you to talk with folks on your end. 9 So we'll be off the record and we'll be back on ten 10 minutes from now. 11 (Recess was taken) 12 MR. WALSH: My direct client didn't know 13 enough people in the administrative law division to say, 14 we want this person. And also, keeping in mind that the 15 attorney general probably has docket control issues and 16 other things so that there might not -- even if we said 17 we want John Smith, they might say, well, yeah, you 18 can't have John Smith. 19 THE COURT: Well, they may, but we don't 20 know if we don't ask. 21 MR. WALSH: Correct. So since we don't 22 know, we're going to investigate that by talking to 23 people at the UT system and some other people to see if 24 there's somebody we say we want. And then in the 25 meantime, we're hoping to get powers that be among
1 themselves, without us, talking about whatever solutions 2 that they might peaceably make among themselves to 3 resolve this thing. 4 So my proposal, if you're agreeable to, is 5 either on Monday we file some agreement among ourselves 6 that we reached a resolution, or I file a sur-reply on 7 Monday and we let you know we want you to go forward. 8 THE COURT: I think that sounds lovely and 9 I'm really appreciative to both of y'all for being 10 willing to engage in the exercise of having a discussion 11 about it. 12 Is there anything else you want to place on 13 the record? 14 MR. WALSH: No, Your Honor, other than just 15 we have -- you know, globally UT Southwestern has an 16 interest in this medical record issue that I think I 17 need to stay a little bit longer for. 18 THE COURT: I'm not requiring you to leave. 19 I think we just have a counsel who, once we conclude 20 this piece, no longer needs to stay. 21 Anything else that you need to be placed on 22 the record? 23 MS. KROMINGA: No, Your Honor. He 24 summarized it perfectly. 25 THE COURT: Okay, lovely. Then with that,
1 you are certainly excused. And any other persons who 2 don't wish to remain here are excused and no longer have 3 to do so for either UT Southwestern or the AG's office. 4 MR. ANDERSON: I am going to excuse myself 5 then, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: You're going to take yourself 7 out of the corner is what you're telling me. 8 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, please. Thank you. 9 THE COURT: All right. Thank y'all. 10 All right. We're going to go ahead and go 11 back off the record. 12 (Discussion held off the record) 13 THE COURT: Counsel, I don't know who wants 14 to take the lead in terms of whether there is an update 15 to provide to the Court. Mr. Sutker, Mr. Stone, I'm 16 looking to you two to tell me if it will be either of 17 you two. 18 MR. SUTKER: I'll start, I guess, 19 Mr. Stone, if that's all right. 20 I believe where we left off, Your Honor, 21 was a proposal for Children's to agree to a DWQ and then 22 to produce information. We had a pretty long discussion 23 amongst all counsel regarding the various issues with 24 that. And ultimately, where Children's comes down is, I 25 really can't agree to do that. We've talked about other
1 proposals, too. And why I don't think it's necessary, 2 unless the other counsel think we need to, to reiterate 3 all the reasons on the record, ultimately, I cannot 4 agree on behalf of Children's to engage in something 5 that bypasses the patients' rights to assert whatever 6 objections they want to assert. 7 And so I took into account the -- the AG's 8 position certainly but also Mr. Logan's. And so I'll -- 9 without that agreement -- we do have an agreement where 10 Mr. Stone and I can continue to meet next week to start 11 narrowing the playing field on the nonmedical record 12 production. 13 THE COURT: So what I've been calling 14 subpoena number two? 15 MR. SUTKER: Yes, Your Honor. 16 And then I can start collecting that 17 information and having it ready to go. And then with 18 respect to the medical records, unfortunately, I don't 19 think there's an easy answer that satisfies everybody as 20 to how to proceed when there is this Court's order 21 versus the Dallas County Court's order. 22 I have represented to the parties that 23 regardless of the orders, my office will continue to 24 redact records and I expect can have them finished 25 completely within the next couple weeks such that when
1 there is finality from somebody, they'll be ready to go 2 out the door as was previously discussed. But I -- and 3 I appreciate all the suggestions that were made today. 4 I do think the way that the State presented them, I 5 honestly don't think that they were trying to bypass 6 anybody's rights. I think they specifically said that 7 they were not. I think it was just trying to get the 8 ball rolling on production. But I have some uneasiness 9 with the way Rule 205 works and needing a subpoena to do 10 that and giving them the right to choose the venue, as 11 they have already done. I just can't be a part of that 12 kind of arrangement. 13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stone, anything 14 to add to Mr. Sutker's report to the Court? 15 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, I'm going to speak 16 for the State. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. 18 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, I -- we respect 19 the decision of Children's, but I do want to clarify. 20 It absolutely is not our intent to deprive anybody of 21 any rights. The simple request was essentially would 22 Children's submit to the jurisdiction of the Collin 23 County Court in the absence of the subpoena. Not even 24 would Children's produce documents but would it submit 25 to the jurisdiction of the Court with all of the same
1 protections that are already provided by the protective 2 order and with the limited scope of tranche one. 3 So we want to make sure the nonparty 4 patients have their opportunity to present objections 5 and privilege assertions and even to get to review the 6 documents as provided by the protective order and can 7 submit them for an in-camera inspection. I presume this 8 transcript is going to make its way to Dallas County, 9 and so I want to make sure we are all on the same page. 10 Nobody here was trying to -- to run an end around 11 anybody's rights. 12 THE COURT: And the Court did not perceive 13 it in that manner. I think the way the Court 14 interpreted Mr. Stone's offer and the effort is, we 15 think the alternative request in the motion for 16 protection relating to the patient records is for the 17 small subset we've identified. Everyone, I think, other 18 than the nonparty patients agrees that's the most basic 19 discovery that will happen in this case. In pursuit of 20 the claims that have been asserted, whether you like the 21 claims, don't like the claims, there is no more basic 22 discovery than what we have distilled in roll one. 23 There can be no more basic discovery. 24 And so, you know, to that end, the way I 25 interpreted it is Mr. Stone's effort to say, can we
1 distill and only talk about the most basic discovery and 2 take all other discovery off the table such that we all 3 have an opportunity for the patients to have their 4 objections heard but in a conference of counsel, not in 5 connection with -- because there would be no discovery 6 requests that were pending that were more broad. That 7 is how the Court interpreted the offer. I know from the 8 nodding of heads by other persons that were in the room 9 that that appeared to also be the interpretation by, you 10 know, Children's, UT Southwestern, and counsel for the 11 doctors. 12 So with that backdrop, Counsel, do you have 13 any anything else you would like to state? 14 MR. FARQUHARSON: We believe that the only 15 solution now -- in light of the absence of an agreement, 16 the only solution is for the Court to -- to grant us 17 protection. And I also want to clarify that the 18 protection -- protection also extends to Cooper wherein 19 Dallas County has not done anything, and so we are 20 asking for protection from both the Lau and Cooper 21 issues. And again, we're not asking that they don't get 22 to make any assertions of privilege or any objections. 23 We are simply asking that those assertions be brought to 24 this Court and that they be heard by this Court, who has 25 invested hours and hours of time and created a very
1 thoughtful process for production. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. Let me just -- I 3 don't want to take anybody's rights to put anything on 4 the record. So let me ask Dr. Lau's Counsel, anything, 5 sir, you would like to place upon the record at this 6 time? 7 MR. LEGG: No comment, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Dr. Cooper's counsel, if 9 you're still with us, Ms. Holland, is there anything 10 else you would like to place upon the record at this 11 time? 12 MS. HOLLAND: Your Honor, nothing directly 13 related to this issue. The only thing I would add is 14 that we filed on Monday a motion to strike the attorney 15 general's petition in intervention and we think that the 16 arguments raised there relate to any remaining arguments 17 the Court is considering regarding the Rule 12 motion. 18 So we would ask that the Court take up those briefs 19 together to the extent that Your Honor is still going to 20 offer a ruling as to the Rule 12 motion. 21 THE COURT: And I think in part that will 22 depend on whether or not ultimately any agreement is 23 reached at a higher level than those and not in -- not 24 in any aspersions intended, but a higher level than 25 what's present here today.
1 MR. WALSH: And I assume just -- 2 THE COURT: Since the AG is not present any 3 longer. 4 MR. WALSH: Correct, that we shouldn't deal 5 with this issue. We should set it for a hearing at a 6 different time to hear that. 7 THE COURT: I think she's just noting that 8 the conflict issues are addressed and so please don't 9 ignore that it's on file. Ms. Holland, that's how I 10 took you to say it. 11 MS. HOLLAND: That's correct, Your Honor. 12 You said it more eloquently than I did. 13 THE COURT: Mr. Sutker, anything else that 14 you would like to place upon the record? 15 MR. SUTKER: Only, Your Honor, just to 16 clarify one other point which I have expressed and I 17 think there was suggestions on how to ensure that these 18 issues are also met. But under any proposal, I also had 19 concerns with HIPAA in terms of needing either a court 20 order or a subpoena, and also making sure that there's 21 proper notification to the patients if we were to revise 22 the plan, which -- which ultimately we are not. But I 23 wanted to make sure that the Court was aware that those 24 were also two other concerns, though admittedly 25 everybody acknowledges those and we had some proposals
1 related to them. 2 THE COURT: And certainly I think I've 3 echoed this at prior hearings. There is nothing, no 4 matter the Court's ruling, that -- that ceases the 5 parties from communicating. So I know, Mr. Sutker, you 6 and Mr. Stone have had a limited opportunity to speak 7 today. There is nothing that ever precludes the parties 8 from working together to reach agreements and I'm always 9 going to encourage y'all to do so. 10 At this time let me ask, UT Southwestern, I 11 would assume that at this juncture, in light of the 12 Court's other rulings at present, you have no additional 13 comments other than to say you stand on the objections 14 which the Court has not stricken in any way? 15 MR. WALSH: Correct. 16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. 17 And then, Mr. Logan? 18 MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry. Your Honor, may I 19 be excused? 20 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. Are you okay? 21 MR. LEWIS: Oh, no, I'm fine. I just 22 wanted to ask the Court's permission. 23 THE COURT: Yes, absolutely. 24 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, so to add some 25 things to the record since the State addressed its offer
1 or its proposal -- 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 MR. LOGAN: -- I would note that we 4 disagree with the State's characterization of it. It 5 does appear to us to be aimed at depriving the Dallas 6 County Court of its jurisdiction over the subpoenas. 7 More importantly, though, than that, Your Honor, I want 8 to also put on the record that again, for what's been 9 multiple times now, we offered to the State to go and 10 put an agreed order in in Dallas County, where the 11 motion for protection is pending, to get the first 12 tranche started and they again declined. So their 13 assertion that there is only one path forward here just 14 isn't true. There is another path forward, another way 15 to get this done. Beyond that, Your Honor, we would 16 just note that we continue to object to any productions 17 while our motion for protection are pending. 18 THE COURT: So, Mr. Logan, would you agree 19 the order that the Court has entered to roll one, if we 20 were to go and to file and to ask the Court in Dallas to 21 enter that order, you would be agreeable to that? 22 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, if we went to 23 Dallas County and the Court agreed with that order, 24 we're happy to go and submit it to that Court and ask it 25 to enter it because it's the Court right now that has
1 jurisdiction of our motion for protection. 2 And importantly -- this is important for 3 the Court to know -- in their plea to the jurisdiction 4 in Dallas County that they just filed, they cite 5 abatement and they say part of the reason we should be 6 abated is because we've participated in these 7 proceedings here and we've gotten relief from this 8 Court, despite what we thought were really clear 9 directives from this Court that us participating wasn't 10 going to jeopardize our rights in any way. 11 THE COURT: And I think I've been very 12 clear that I intended in no way to jeopardize. I've 13 been thankful to everyone to participate in the 14 discussions. Whether I ultimately agree with the paths 15 that have been taken is a different point, but I will 16 reiterate that at no point in time do I find that you 17 have waived any arguments or objections and the 18 communications I've asked for y'all to do was so that we 19 could ease the burden on all parties. 20 MR. LOGAN: Thank you, Your Honor. And so 21 with that background, that's part of the reason that 22 it's very important to us that if there is going to be 23 an order entered for this first tranche, it should be 24 entered in Dallas County where the motions for 25 protection are pending because we feel like it puts in a
1 very perilous position to start agreeing to piecemeal 2 productions here when we're trying to get the motion for 3 protection there. 4 THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. 5 All right. At this time, then, everybody's 6 points having been placed upon the record, again, I'm 7 trying to give y'all the totality of the record so that 8 if you have any additional points, this is your final 9 opportunity. Going once, going twice, is there anything 10 else that anyone wants to place upon your record here 11 today? 12 MR. LOGAN: This one's not so much on the 13 record, but we did also have a motion for protection 14 pending for the party discovery here that was noticed 15 for today. I don't think it's critical that we get to 16 that today. I just wanted to note it for the Court so 17 we can take that up later when it's appropriate. 18 MR. STONE: We have one issue, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 20 MR. STONE: We'd like -- I know the -- I'm 21 sorry. Your Honor, can you hear me? 22 THE COURT: I can. 23 MR. STONE: Okay. One thing that I think 24 is a recurring event at these hearings is for counsel 25 for Cooper and Lau to give the Court an update on the
1 production that they've been gathering, and I think it 2 will be helpful to the Court to understand exactly how 3 much production the State has actually received so far. 4 So we would ask if the counsel for the parties could 5 provide the Court with an update. 6 THE COURT: We'll start with Lau, who's 7 present. 8 MR. LEGG: Your Honor, we've made two 9 rolling productions. 10 THE COURT: Can you pull that microphone. 11 You are the most soft spoken lawyer I've ever met. 12 MR. LEGG: Sorry. Your Honor, we've made 13 two productions so far, two rolling productions. 14 THE COURT: And the volume? What's the 15 page count? 16 MR. LEGG: The page count, I believe, is 17 about -- my Bates numbers off the top of my head -- 18 about 180 pages, about 100 records total so far. We are 19 continuing to roll. We've collected everything like we 20 represented last time and are just doing that review and 21 we are mindful that the Court's waiting on us to update 22 our objections. 23 THE COURT: And I would encourage y'all to 24 be a little bit quicker than you have been. 180 pages, 25 from where we're at, is not a substantial step forward
1 in connection with the discovery, and so I would just 2 encourage y'all to step up your efforts and ensure that 3 you are getting those rolls taken care of more quickly 4 and getting more documents out the door. 5 MR. LEGG: Yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. All right. 7 And then, Ms. Holland, are you still with 8 us? 9 MS. HOLLAND: Yes, Your Honor. 10 Dr. Cooper has made one production so far, 11 I believe, and I apologize. I don't have the specific 12 numbers on that ready to go. We have also undertaken 13 collection efforts and are in the process of reviewing 14 the results of those collections and plan for the 15 production to the State as soon as possible. 16 MR. STONE: I believe they gave us 73 17 pages -- 73 pages of documents. 18 MS. HOLLAND: Thank you, Johnathan. 19 THE COURT: All right. And so I think -- 20 Ms. Holland, I know y'all's objections and responses 21 were due after Dr. Lau's as we discussed at the last 22 hearing. So I think you've been party to all the 23 communications the Court has had regarding, you know, 24 collection and protection, and so just as with Dr. Lau, 25 I would certainly encourage y'all to be very aggressive
1 in your review and ensure that you're timely making 2 rolling productions so that we, you know, can all be 3 assured of moving the case forward. Okay? 4 MS. HOLLAND: We will do so. Thank you. 5 THE COURT: All right. At this time the 6 Court rules as follows on the motions that it's heard 7 today: The Court, on the nonparty patients' verified 8 expedited motion to stay production from the hospital 9 systems in each of the two cause numbers, the Court 10 grants in part and denies in part. The Court grants the 11 stay insofar as at present the Court only orders 12 production of the records from January 1, 2022, through 13 present that have been contemplated within roll one. 14 The Court further notes in connection with 15 that as follows: The motion for protection has only 16 been considered in connection with the Lau proceeding, 17 not yet with Cooper. I don't believe that this Court's 18 ruling here today conflicts with any order out of the 19 Cooper case. 20 And in connection with the Lau case, as it 21 relates to any production to the nonparty patients and 22 to the doctor's counsel, that's not a production to the 23 State. And then as well, in connection with protective 24 orders themselves, a person need only not to comply with 25 the part of the subpoena from which protection is
1 sought, and the protection that is sought, my 2 understanding based upon the Court's review of the 3 comments in connection with Rule 197 -- 176 and then as 4 well case law in the state of Texas is that the 5 represented patients are interested in their records. 6 And so to that end, I'm looking at the 7 order related to the unrepresented patients. As it 8 relates to UT Southwestern, obviously no documents are 9 being produced at this time until we get that issue. 10 But once UT Southwestern either is properly represented 11 by Mr. Walsh or with some new person, the Court orders 12 production to go forward in connection with the 13 unrepresented patients in both Lau and Cooper. 14 As it relates to the unrepresented patients 15 for Children's, I order the production to go forward 16 tomorrow to counsel for Dr. Cooper and Dr. Lau. The 17 Court is going to set a hearing related to the in-camera 18 review. We're going to set that hearing for -- well, 19 given the volume, I had intended to set it on that 4/7 20 date. 21 Dr. Lau, do -- Counsel, do you think that's 22 going to be sufficient? You're going to get the 23 records. You're going to get back to Children's on the 24 ones that you want redacted. If I set a hearing on the 25 7th, is that -- we think that's going to work, right?
1 MR. LEGG: Your Honor, I believe so. I 2 would have to see the volume. If we needed to push 3 back, we could advise the Court -- 4 THE COURT: I'll plan to set it on the 7th 5 and we can further discuss. 6 MR. LEGG: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Okay. And so the Court's going 8 to set the in-camera hearing for April the 7th at 9 9:00 a.m. 10 MR. FARQUHARSON: Judge, really quick. 11 Johnathan and I both have -- I'm supposed to be on 12 vacation and I think Johnathan has a conflict as well 13 that day. 14 THE COURT: Johnathan -- Mr. Stone, do you 15 have a conflict? 16 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor, I believe I 17 do. I'm checking my calendar right now, but I believe I 18 do. 19 THE COURT: The only other potential day 20 that I've got is not going to be until the 16th at 21 9:00 a.m. And to be frank, I have a conflicting trial 22 setting, so I can't promise y'all won't get bumped. But 23 I'm happy to set y'all on the 16th instead but you may 24 get bumped. 25 MR. STONE: I am teaching a class at Baylor
1 on the 7th, consumer protections. I can -- the 16th -- 2 MR. SUTKER: It would actually help me the 3 later date because I was -- I'm still going to -- 4 THE COURT: Have redaction? Okay. 5 (Simultaneous speaking) 6 MR. SUTKER: -- production for more time. 7 Because I didn't know that we've been focusing on just 8 the unrepresented patients. They may be -- we may 9 have to -- I didn't -- I think we were just going 10 through the list in order. And if it's just 11 unrepresented patients, that's obviously not a ton, but 12 I think we're going to need more time. 13 THE COURT: Okay. So we'll do the 16th at 14 9:00 a.m. Again, I'm looking at the Court's order 15 related to the unrepresented patients. So we're going 16 to set the hearing contemplated by subpart D of the 17 Court's order on April the 16th at 9:00 a.m. 18 MR. LEGG: Your Honor, for clarity. I 19 believe you set, based on my notes, the venue hearing on 20 the 7th. Do we -- 21 THE COURT: I did. And we're going to come 22 back and revisit in light of the fact that they said 23 they have a conflict since I did set that hearing then. 24 Okay. In connection with this, I do 25 require the State, prior to April 4th, to confer with
1 Children's regarding this concern about the patient 2 notices. 3 Mr. Stone, Mr. Sutker, I think we've 4 already addressed this today, but again, I just want to 5 memorialize that part of the Court's order here related 6 to these unrepresented patients is that y'all will sit 7 down and confer regarding these addresses, and if we 8 identify that something has been sent to an incorrect or 9 an old address such that the hospital, being Children's, 10 has a more updated address, we are going to renotice. 11 Do we have -- you understand? 12 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor. 13 MR. SUTKER: Yes, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: And once UT Southwestern either 15 continues to be represented by current counsel or has 16 different counsel, they will have that same obligation. 17 Again, this Court is very interested in making sure that 18 all of these patients have notice related to their 19 records. So that is the Court's ruling as it relates to 20 the unrepresented patients. That is the only change to 21 the Court's order related to the unrepresented patients. 22 Again, in connection with subpart B, the 23 Court previously revoked its directive to begin rolling 24 productions on March the 11th. I've changed that. And 25 so productions are to begin on a rolling basis tomorrow.
1 And again, no records that are in the possession of UT 2 Southwestern at this time. As soon as we have counsel 3 or confirmed counsel in place, the production will 4 begin. 5 As it relates to the represented patients, 6 the Court similarly sets the hearing on subpart D for 7 April the 16th at 9:00 a.m. The Court hereby suspends 8 subsection E as to the represented patients in both the 9 Lau and Cooper case until after the hearing on 4/16. So 10 just to be clear, at this time the Court is finding that 11 none of the records for the represented patients are 12 contemplated to be produced to the State at present. 13 I do direct counsel for the represented 14 patients and the State to substantively confer regarding 15 discovery in this case related to the patient records to 16 ascertain and to determine whether they can agree to 17 this limited production to the State and any mechanism 18 that they can see to move the case and discovery forward 19 with less conflict. 20 Does anyone have any questions regarding 21 the Court's ruling on the nonparty patients' verified 22 expedited motions to stay? 23 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor, we would just move 24 for the Court to reconsider having any productions made, 25 whether to the State or not, given that there's a motion
1 for protection pending. 2 The second part that we would ask to 3 reconsider is any productions for the unrepresented 4 parties because that issue was before the Dallas County 5 Court. It had taken it up at the hearing before the 6 interlocutory appeal was filed, and therefore, that 7 issue is stayed by the interlocutory appeal at that 8 court until it's resolved. 9 THE COURT: As to the second point, the 10 Court disagrees with your assessment, and so I decline 11 to reconsider. But again, I want to be very clear in 12 connection with the represented patients. The Court's 13 order that was entered on February 28th, I am suspending 14 subpart E. And so to be very, very clear, I am not 15 contemplating in any way, shape, or form records for the 16 represented patients going to the State prior to the 17 time that we will all be back together again on April 18 16th. And I am ordering the nonparty patients and 19 counsel for the State to sit down and to talk through, 20 more than the limited discussion they had today, whether 21 there is some way to move this case and the discovery 22 forward in a manner which costs everyone less money and 23 which is more patient. 24 Okay. That takes us -- 25 MR. LOGAN: Your Honor.
1 THE COURT: Oh, sorry. 2 MR. LOGAN: Sorry. 3 Understanding the Court's order on the 4 motion to reconsider, the patients, the represented 5 patients, continue to have serious concerns about the 6 production, including that the unrepresented patients 7 who may have commingled documents, there may be logs 8 that have their names on them. So, you know, it is 9 something that I think we're probably going to have to 10 seek review of. And I only say that -- 11 THE COURT: I'm not surprised. Certainly 12 we already all were aware that this is likely where 13 we're headed. I wish that we were not. 14 MR. LOGAN: Understood. Yes, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: So if you're saying that so I 16 won't be offended -- 17 MR. LOGAN: No. Partly, though, to give 18 notice also that we will ask for an administrative stay. 19 So I wanted to give the State notice of that as well as 20 the Court that that's part of the relief. 21 THE COURT: Understood. 22 In connection with the State's motion for 23 protective order, the Court at present takes that matter 24 under advisement pending the Court [sic] providing the 25 Court with supplemental regarding the issue that I asked
1 about. Surely there is some court in the state of Texas 2 where this has happened before where there is, in fact, 3 as we now have, a conflict between the issuing court and 4 the county where the subpoena was served. And so how 5 have the other courts in the state of Texas addressed 6 that issue, and I would like to -- for your motion to be 7 supplemented. 8 To the extent there are any other parties 9 present here today who would also like to weigh in on 10 that issue with any authority, you may also file any 11 briefing to the Court before close of business on the 12 24th. 13 So at present, the motion for protection 14 from the State remains pending receipt of that 15 additional briefing. 16 Let me just ask, Mr. Sutker, do you have 17 any questions whatsoever, sir? 18 MR. SUTKER: Just one, Your Honor, and 19 maybe it's an easy ask in light of Mr. Logan's 20 representation to the Court, but can rolling production 21 begin on Monday versus tomorrow? 22 THE COURT: Instead of tomorrow? I thought 23 you said you did have some of the records for the 24 unrepresented ready to go. 25 MR. SUTKER: Well, no. What -- and if I
1 said that, I apologize. What I said was I have -- I 2 have 10 to 12 records ready to go. What I don't know is 3 they are represented or unrepresented. If they are -- 4 if they are part of the unrepresented group, then 5 certainly can get them out the door, but since I'm out 6 of town, I may not be able to get that issue solely 7 aligned before Monday. 8 THE COURT: Mr. Sutker, I sincerely 9 apologize because I do know that you're out of town and 10 I'm certainly not trying to be difficult or 11 unaccommodating to your schedule, but just given the 12 high level of conflict and, you know, everyone's 13 differing decisions, the Court wants to make as few 14 changes to the prior order as possible so that there is 15 no confusion about what it is that I am ordering and so 16 I'm -- again, I've permitted rolling production, so I'm 17 certainly not requiring you to get everything out the 18 door, but I would ask that your client begin getting 19 some things out the door tomorrow, sir. 20 MR. SUTKER: Okay. And I just got a text 21 from Ms. Cooper. It looks like we have two 22 unrepresented Cooper patients done. 23 THE COURT: Okay, great. Send those out 24 tomorrow and you have started rolling. 25 MR. SUTKER: Okay.
1 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Stone, since you're 2 with us on the video, anything nothing further you would 3 like to add or ask for questions or clarification, sir? 4 MR. STONE: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 5 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Holland, I know 6 you're also with us via Zoom. 7 MS. HOLLAND: Nothing to add, Your Honor. 8 Thank you. 9 THE COURT: Thank you so much. 10 Counsel for Dr. Lau, anything at all? 11 MR. LEGG: Nothing, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Okay. And then the folks that 13 are truly impacted by the Court's ruling, State, 14 anything else for those that are present? 15 MR. FARQUHARSON: No. 16 THE COURT: Okay. And, Mr. Logan, sir, 17 anything from you? 18 MR. LOGAN: No, Your Honor, and I very much 19 appreciate the Court's patience over these hearings, so 20 thank you. 21 THE COURT: So then I don't think you have 22 anything to add, but I don't want to forget you. 23 MR. WALSH: Not on that topic, but I did 24 think of something else that I think we need to get the 25 State and the AG together on. I produced about 13- or
1 1400 pages of personnel files this week. And can they 2 talk amongst -- can the State and the AG talk amongst 3 themselves about whether I need to have that -- 4 THE COURT: Clawed back? 5 MR. WALSH: -- clawed back or -- and that 6 would include -- it's been produced to the defendants, 7 too. So either -- can y'all figure that out about 8 whether that needs to come back to me, or can that just 9 be like the venue thing? 10 MR. FARQUHARSON: I thought we addressed ed 11 this earlier. I don't feel -- 12 THE COURT: I think we only expressly 13 addressed the venue records. So I think his concern is, 14 I'm worried that the current record doesn't cover the 15 issue, and since I excused counsel for the AG, I think, 16 given the concern regarding the issues, I'm going to ask 17 can you contact her directly? 18 MR. WALSH: Sure, sure. 19 THE COURT: And I think what y'all should 20 just do is file a notice with the Court as to whether or 21 not you've agreed that those records will be clawed back 22 or the production will remain and just file that on 23 Monday along with the other items y'all are going to be 24 updating or briefing me on. 25 MR. WALSH: Sure.
1 THE COURT: Okay? All right. Thank you, 2 everyone. With that, we are going to be adjourned. 3 Thank you. 4 (Pause in proceedings) 5 THE COURT: Everybody, I sincerely 6 apologize. Dr. Lau's counsel brought to my attention, I 7 set the venue hearing for the 7th. Since the State has 8 advised that there's a conflict, it seems to be most 9 provident for us to move the venue hearing from the 7th 10 and set it as well for the 16th at 9:00 a.m. 11 State, do you concur? 12 MR. FARQUHARSON: Yes, Judge. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Lau Counsel? 14 MR. LEGG: Concur. 15 THE COURT: And I apologize, regarding 16 letting Ms. Holika [sic] -- will you do me a favor and 17 just confirm that she doesn't have any objection to 18 that. I'm so sorry. I just let it go. So with that 19 we'll go ahead and be adjourned. 20 (Proceedings concluded)
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF COLLIN )
3
4 I, Ashley Boyd, Official Court Reporter in and for 5 the 493rd District Court of Collin County, State of 6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 7 contains a true and correct transcription of all 8 portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in 9 writing by counsel for the parties to be included in 10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred 12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of 14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the 15 exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this EXPEDITED Reporter's Record is 18 $427.50 and was paid by the State of Texas who is 19 Plaintiff with the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 20 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 27th day of
21 March, 2025.
/s/ Ashley Boyd
22 Ashley Boyd, Texas CSR 11998 Expiration Date: 09/30/2025 23 Official Court Reporter 493rd District Court
24 2100 Bloomdale Road Collin County, Texas
25 McKinney, Texas
Exhibit D
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 493-07676-2024 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 493-08026-2024 3
4 THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT §
5 § Plaintiff, §
6 § VS. § 7 § 493RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT §
8 MAY C. LAU, M.D., § §
9 § Defendant. § COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS 10
11 THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 12 § §
13 Plaintiff, § §
14 VS. § § 493RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15 § M. BRETT COOPER, M.D., § 16 § §
17 Defendant. § COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
18 19 *********************** 20 MOTION TO SEAL HEARING 21 ***********************
22 On the 26th day of March, 2025, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled 23 and numbered cause before the Honorable Christine Nowak, Judge presiding, held in McKinney, Collin County, Texas;
24 Proceedings reported by machine shorthand.
1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE STATE OF TEXAS:
3 MR. DAVID SHATTO (VIA ZOOM)
4 SBOT: #24104114 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 5 PO Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 6 Phone: 512-936-2613 David.shatto@oag.texas.gov 7
8 MR. ROBERT FARQUHARSON SBOT: #24100550 9 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO Box 12548 10 Austin, Texas 78711 Phone: 512-936-2613 11 Robert.farquharson@oag.texas.gov
12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, MAY C. LAU, M.D.:
13 MR. JOHN V. TREVINO, JR.
14 SBOT: #24003082 LEBOEUF LAW, PLLC 15 325 North Saint Paul Street Suite 3400 16 Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone: 214-624-9803 17 Info@leboeuflaw.com
18 FOR THE DEFENDANT, M. BRETT COOPER, M.D.:
19 MS. ANIKA HOLLAND 20 (VIA ZOOM)
CA Bar#336071 21 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP 333 Bush Street 22 Floor 34 San Francisco, California 94104 23 Phone: 415-858-7411 Aholland@willkie.com 24 - AND -
1 MS. ZOE PACKMAN (VIA ZOOM)
2 CA Bar#347453 Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP 3 333 Bush Street Floor 34 4 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: 415-858-7411 5 Zpackman@willkie.com
6 FOR THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH NONPARTY PATIENTS:
7 MS. JACKIE COOPER 8 SBOT: #24050861 COOPER & SCULLY, PC 9 900 Jackson Street Suite 100 10 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-712-9500 11 Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com
1 I N D E X 2 (MOTION TO SEAL) 3 3/26/25 Page Vol 4 Appearances.................................... 2 5 Proceedings................................... 5
6 Movant's Motion to Seal....................... 6 7 Court's Ruling................................ 7
8 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal.................... 8 Court's Ruling................................ 9 9 Reporter's Certificate......................... 13
1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: At this time the Court calls 3 the following Cause Numbers: 493-07676-2024. This is 4 the State of Texas versus May C. Lau. As well the Court 5 calls 493-08026-2024. This is the State of Texas versus 6 M. Brett Cooper, M.D. In connection with each of these 7 cases, there is a pending sealing request which we're 8 here to address today. 9 The Court will just note for purposes of 10 the record, we -- the hearing today was properly 11 noticed. The Court has called both the hall and the 12 courtroom. There are no persons from the public that 13 are present. So we'll go ahead and address, first, 14 Children's motion. 15 If I could have an appearance on behalf of 16 counsel present here in the courtroom. 17 MS. COOPER: This is Jackie Cooper for 18 non-party movant, Children's Health. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 MR. FARQUHARSON: And Rob Farquharson for 21 the State. 22 THE COURT: Thank you. 23 MR. TREVINO: John Trevino for Dr. Lau. 24 THE COURT: And with us via Zoom. 25 MS. HOLLAND: Anika Holland for Dr. Cooper.
1 MS. PACKMAN: Zoe Packman for Dr. Cooper. 2 MR. SHATTO: And David Shatto with the 3 State. 4 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, 5 everyone. Again, I'm just going to note for purposes of 6 the record, the public was properly noticed in 7 connection with today's hearing. As well, all persons 8 associated with this cause were noticed that we were 9 having the hearing on the sealing request today. So 10 with that, I'm going to turn this over to Children's. 11 MS. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honor. I 12 think the request is pretty simple. We filed a Rule 76A 13 and the Court has ordered a temporary order -- or sorry 14 -- a temporary sealing of the court record in question. 15 We're not asking for the entire document to be sealed 16 but rather just the exhibit that contains confidential 17 information. So this is -- the permanent request is a 18 little bit more narrow than the temporary request. 19 And I brought orders for the Court to 20 review and for the State and whoever else wants to look 21 at it, but it tracks almost exactly the language of the 22 court's temporary order just changing it to exhibit 23 versus the whole filing. 24 THE COURT: Again, I have noted that there 25 are no persons present from the public, and thus there
1 are no public members who object. Let me ask at this 2 time for all counsel who are present here today, do any 3 of you have any objection whatsoever to permanently 4 seal? If so, speak now. 5 MR. FARQUHARSON: None from the State. 6 MR. TREVINO: None, Your Honor, from 7 Dr. Lau. 8 THE COURT: Dr. Cooper? 9 MR. SHATTO: None from Dr. Cooper. 10 THE COURT: All right. So that covering 11 all counsel for parties who are present, the Court finds 12 it's proper and appropriate to grant the request to 13 permanently seal, and at this time, Counsel, I'll ask 14 you to bring the proposed order forward. 15 While the Court's receiving that order, I'm 16 just going to note as well for purposes of the record, 17 the Court was provided two agreed orders which it has 18 already executed between the AG and UT Southwestern, 19 which the Court believes resolved the Rule 12 issue as 20 well as the intervention. 21 Related to that as well are certain 22 requests from Dr. Cooper's counsel to strike the 23 intervention and certain requests by the State related 24 to clawback and sanctions. I believe that the 25 agreements between the AG's office and UT Southwestern
1 resolve all those issues. I would ask for the parties 2 to confirm that I am correct and as well to provide the 3 Court an order that says, in light of the execution of 4 the agreed orders, all parties agreed the following 5 motions are now moot and no longer relief is requested. 6 In light of the fact that UT Southwestern 7 does now have counsel, obviously the Court stayed any 8 protection from UT Southwestern pending them having 9 counsel of record. Now that they will have counsel, the 10 Court hereby reinstates its prior order to UT 11 Southwestern to produce the relevant documents that have 12 been ordered in connection with roll one. 13 Let me go ahead and just ask at this time, 14 Children's, is there anything further that I can do for 15 you? 16 MS. COOPER: No. Thank you, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. State? 18 MR. FARQUHARSON: Thank you, Judge. 19 Similar to Children's, the State also has a motion to 20 seal on file, and it is relatively simple for the 21 reasons that we set forth in our motion. We would ask 22 that the documents represented therein be sealed. 23 THE COURT: All right. Again, I'll just 24 note for purposes of the record, no persons are present 25 from the public who object to the request for sealing.
1 Let me go ahead and just ask for all counsel who are 2 present, is there any opposition or objection to the 3 Court sealing pursuant to the State's request? 4 Childrens's? 5 MS. COOPER: No, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Lau? 7 MR. TREVINO: No, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Cooper? 9 MS. HOLLAND: No, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: All right. In light thereof, 11 the Court hereby as well grants the State's request, and 12 I'll ask if you'll please bring an order forward for the 13 Court's execution at this time. 14 All right. Lastly, do you have a proposed 15 order? 16 MR. FARQUHARSON: I believe David -- Mr. 17 Shatto is going to e-mail one to the Court here 18 momentarily. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Shatto, is that correct? 20 MR. SHATTO: That is correct. I can e-mail 21 one to you in a moment. 22 THE COURT: Okay. So I just want to make 23 sure. Mr. Miller is out of the office today, so please 24 make sure that you're utilizing the 493rd and/or Ms. 25 Patterson's e-mail, okay?
1 MR. SHATTO: Yes, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Okay. One final item that I 3 just want to delineate. The parties have provided the 4 Court a contact list, right? And I asked for everyone 5 to identify two counsel of record per party or nonparty. 6 Ms. Patterson, when she's sending out e-mails is going 7 to continue to send e-mails to that contact list. If 8 you want the information from the Court further 9 disseminated past the two people who are on the contact 10 list, it is y'all's responsibility to do so. 11 So if you have any additional members of 12 your team -- so, for example, Dr. Lau, Dr. Cooper, for 13 the State, you have more than those two lawyers, it's 14 y'all's responsibility to send it out further than that. 15 The number of lawyers at this juncture is too unwieldy 16 for Ms. Patterson to be the laboring ore on those 17 communications. So we'll take responsibility for 18 notifying the contact list, but separate and beyond 19 that, the responsibility is on y'all. I just wanted to 20 make sure that I reiterated that while we were on the 21 record. 22 Let me go ahead and ask at this time, 23 Children's, anything else we should address in 24 connection with today's hearing? 25 MS. COOPER: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
1 THE COURT: State? 2 MR. FARQUHARSON: I'm just curious. Last 3 time -- I'm trying to remember where -- with respect to 4 UT Southwestern and their obligations that came back up, 5 had the Court ordered a certain date for production from 6 them? 7 THE COURT: For Children's I had ordered 8 production to begin on a rolling basis as of March 21st, 9 and since we've already past the March 21 date, UT 10 Southwestern's obligations would kick in now as well as 11 a rolling production. 12 MR. FARQUHARSON: Okay. Thank you, Judge. 13 THE COURT: Dr. Lau, anything further? 14 MR. TREVINO: No, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: And Dr. Cooper? 16 MR. SHATTO: No, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Well, it was lovely to 18 see everyone so early on this gloomy day. If there's 19 nothing further, then we'll go ahead and be adjourned, 20 and I am having Ms. Patterson e-file each of the orders 21 from today's hearing so that they'll be available to you 22 readily, quickly. And again, we'll get an e-mail out to 23 y'all asking for y'all to confirm the motions that are 24 now moot and providing the Court a proposed order 25 related to that. And with that we'll be adjourned.
1 (Proceedings concluded)
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF COLLIN )
3
4 I, Ashley Boyd, Official Court Reporter in and for 5 the 493rd District Court of Collin County, State of 6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 7 contains a true and correct transcription of all 8 portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in 9 writing by counsel for the parties to be included in 10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred 12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of 14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the 15 exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this EXPEDITED Reporter's Record is 18 $70.00 and was paid by OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 19 for the State of Texas. 20 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 28th day of
21 March, 2025.
/s/ Ashley Boyd
22 Ashley Boyd, Texas CSR 11998 Expiration Date: 09/30/2025 23 Official Court Reporter 493rd District Court
24 2100 Bloomdale Road Collin County, Texas
25 McKinney, Texas
Exhibit E
Filed: 2/28/2025 1:24 PM Michael Gould District Clerk Collin County, Texas By Sarah Beasley Deputy Envelope ID: 97928698
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 97928698 Filing Code Description: Court Action-Signed Order Filing Description: ORDER Status as of 2/28/2025 1:39 PM CST
Associated Case Party: The State of Texas Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status David G. Shatto david.shatto@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Rob Farquharson rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Abby Smith abby.smith@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Johnathan Stone johnathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Ian Bergstrom Ian.Bergstrom@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Christopher Molak christopher.molak@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Amy Pletscher amy.pletscher@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: MBrettCooper Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Avishay Moshenberg 24083532 avi.moshenberg@lmbusinesslaw.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Nicholas Lawson Nick.Lawson@lmbusinesslaw.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Jervonne Newsome jnewsome@winston.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Thanh D.Nguyen tdnguyen@winston.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT William Logan wlogan@winston.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Docket South ecf_houston@winston.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Anika Holland AHolland@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Simona Agnolucci sagnolucci@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Barrington Dyer bdyer@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Zoe Packman zpackman@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Emma Rodriguez erodriguez@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Isabella Corbo icorbo@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 97928698 Filing Code Description: Court Action-Signed Order Filing Description: ORDER Status as of 2/28/2025 1:39 PM CST
Associated Case Party: MBrettCooper Isabella Corbo icorbo@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Remy Carreiro rcarreiro@willkie.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT
Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Pauline Sisson pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Emily Samuels emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Melinda Pate melinda.pate@oag.texas.gov 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Jackie Cooper Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Cory Sutker Cory.Sutker@cooperscully.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Winston Office nonparty-patient-counsel@winston.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT Delvary Turnipseed delvary.turnipseed@cooperscully.com 2/28/2025 1:24:20 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Pauline Sisson on behalf of Rob Farquharson Bar No. 24100550 pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov Envelope ID: 99244982 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: 20250403 States Resp to Second Emerg Mtn Stay with Exs A to E Status as of 4/3/2025 1:30 PM CST
Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Pauline Sisson pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Emily Samuels emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Houston Docketing ecf_houston@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Melinda Pate melinda.pate@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Jamie Vargo JVargo@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: NonParty Patient No. 1 Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jervonne Newsome JNewsome@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Thanh Nguyen TDNguyen@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Evan Lewis edlewis@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT William Logan WLogan@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Olivia Wogon owogon@winston.com 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: State of Texas Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Johnathan Stone johnathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Rob Farquharson rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT David G. Shatto david.shatto@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Abby Smith abby.smith@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Ian Bergstrom Ian.Bergstrom@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Pauline Sisson on behalf of Rob Farquharson Bar No. 24100550 pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov Envelope ID: 99244982 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: 20250403 States Resp to Second Emerg Mtn Stay with Exs A to E Status as of 4/3/2025 1:30 PM CST
Associated Case Party: State of Texas Ian Bergstrom Ian.Bergstrom@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT Amy Pletscher amy.pletscher@oag.texas.gov 4/3/2025 1:22:13 PM SENT
In Re Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 v. the State of Texas (In Re Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.