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
4/2/2025 9:05 PM
NO. 15-25-00031-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK
IN THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF FILED TEXAS IN AT
AUSTIN, TEXAS 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
4/2/2025 9:05:25 PM
Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No.A.3,PRINE CHRISTOPHER
Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Clerk
Nonparty Patient No. 7, Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11, Relators
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus From the 493rd District Court at Collin County, Texas, Cause No. 493-07676-2024
The Honorable Judge Christine A. Nowak, Presiding
NONPARTY PATIENTS’ SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Jervonne D. Newsome (Lead Counsel) William M. Logan Texas Bar No. 24094869 Texas Bar No. 24106214 jnewsome@winston.com wlogan@winston.com Thanh D. Nguyen Evan D. Lewis Texas Bar No. 24126931 Texas Bar No. 24116670 tdnguyen@winston.com edlewis@winston.com Jonathan Hung Olivia A. Wogon Texas Bar No. 24143033 Texas Bar No. 24137299 johung@winston.com owogon@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 N. Pearl St., 9th Floor 800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 Dallas, TX 75201 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (214) 453-6500 Telephone: (713) 651-2600
Because UTSW has begun producing documents in contravention of this Court’s March 21, 2025 Order, Relators respectfully request this Court grant their Second Emergency Motion to Stay for the reasons detailed below.
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2025, the Collin County court issued a production order in relation to subpoenas served onto two hospitals in Dallas County: Children’s Health System of Texas (“Children’s”) and UT Southwestern Medical Center (“UTSW”). Although production orders are usually straightforward, the Collin County court’s was not. Its order had three components. First, Children’s had to produce records of unrepresented patients to two physicians on the morning of March 21, 2025, even though those records may commingle Relators’ information with the unrepresented patients’. Pet. at 6. Second, Children’s had to produce Relators’ medical records to the undersigned counsel that same day. Id. And third, UTSW had to produce records for both the unrepresented patients and Relators in batches once it determined which attorney would represent it.1 Id.
Shortly after midnight, on March 21, 2025, Relators Nonparty Patients filed their Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Among other relief, Relators asked this Court
1 UTSW initially obtained private counsel to respond to the subpoenas. See generally, Ex. A. The Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) intervened, arguing roughly that UTSW was required to seek the AGO’s permission before obtaining private counsel or seek representation through the AGO. Id.
to “order[] the Collin County court to stay the production of documents pursuant to the subpoenas challenged in Dallas County until the Dallas County court rules on the pending Motions for Protection.” Id. at 15. Relators’ petition made clear that only the Dallas County court can decide how, and whether, the two subpoenaed hospitals should produce documents. Id. at 9–14.
Because Children’s production would begin a few hours after Relators filed their mandamus petition and UTSW’s production obligations could trigger at any moment, Relators also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay. See Mot. to Stay. Recognizing that the Nonparty Patients may suffer irreparable harm absent appellate intervention, the Court granted the Relators’ motion and ordered “that the trial court’s oral order of March 20, 2025, is stayed pending a final decision by this Court on relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this Court.” See Order re Mot. to Stay. As Relators interpret this order, the order stayed the entirety of the Collin County court’s March 20, 2025 order. Stated differently, this Court’s stay order paused production obligations for both Children’s and UTSW.
On March 26, the Collin County court held a hearing on two motions: the State of Texas’s Motion to Seal Court Records and Nonparty Children’s Health
System of Texas’s (“Children’s”) Unopposed Motion to Seal Court Records. Ex. B at 5:2-14.2 After the Collin County court orally granted the two motions, it discussed UTSW’s production obligations under the subpoena served on it by the State of Texas. Id. at 7:15-8:12. The court stated:
In light of the fact that UT Southwestern does now have counsel, obviously the Court stayed any protection from UT Southwestern pending them having counsel of record.
Now that they will have counsel, the Court hereby reinstates its prior order to UT Southwestern to produce the relevant documents that have been ordered in connection with roll one.
Id. at 8:6-12.
Later in the hearing, the court continued and stated:
For Children’s I had ordered production to begin on a rolling basis as of March 21st, and since we've already past the March 21 date, UT Southwestern’s obligations would kick in now as well as a rolling production.
Id. at 11:7-11.
The only way to read this order in light of this Court’s March 21 Order on
Relators’ Motion to Stay is that UTSW’s production was no longer affected by the stay specific to it and related to its retention of counsel. However, the State chose to read this language from the Collin County court as requiring immediate production
2 Counsel for Relators was in attendance at this hearing, but did not make an appearance on the record. Nguyen Decl. ¶¶ 1–6.
from UTSW, over the objections of Relators. Ex. C at 7. The State eventually acquiesced to allowing a one-week extension of production. Id. at 1.
Later, due to the evident confusion of the State, the Collin County court, through Ms. Amy Patterson, Court Coordinator, clarified that:
The Court merely intended to clarify at the hearing on the motion to seal which it had anticipated all parties would be present at that in light of the resolution of the Rule 12 motion it believed UTSW was subject to the same production requirements applicable to Children’s. The Court is aware of the stay in light of the mandamus proceeding the court is just merely trying to ensure that any issues with UTSW and Children’s are moving forward on the same track. I hope that is helpful please advise if you need anything from the Court at this time.
Ex. D at 1 (emphasis added).
To Relators, this confirmed that the Collin County court likewise believed that
UTSW’s production was subject to the Order from this Court. Relators therefore thought that was the end of the matter.
However, today, on April 2, UTSW produced documents pursuant to the subpoenas complained about in Relators Petition. Ex. E at 3. What is more, they did so via an unsecured link in an email sent to Relators and the State. Id. at 1-3. Though apparently there was meant to be security precautions in place so that the State could not access the unredacted documents, this was not the case—the State could access the files. When questioned, UTSW stated that “it is UTSW’s position that the stay of discovery ordered by the 15th Court applies only to Children’s, not UTSW.
Indeed, the 493rd is aware of the orders issued by the 15th Court, and nevertheless ordered this.” Id. at 2.
Thus, Relators now seek a Second Emergency Stay that (1) confirms that this Court’s stay applies to any production sought under the subpoenas complained of in Relators’ Petition, and (2) orders the State, and anyone else who received records from UTSW, to destroy any such records to the extent that it has not already done so.
DISCUSSION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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.