Opinion
05-24-00950-CV
10-01-2024
IN RE DAVID LATHAM, M.D., DILLON PAUL, M.D., AND AKRAM ABD EL KADER, M.D., Relators
Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-04271
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
In this original proceeding, relators seek mandamus relief from three discovery orders: (1) Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel EHC Consulting, LLC's Responses to Subpoena and Request for Sanctions; (2) Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Non-Parties ER Hulen, LLC, ER Addison, LLC, and ERNearMe Plano, LLC's Responses to Subpoena and Request for Sanctions; and (3) Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Subpoena Duces Tecum to MedOps Consulting, LLC and Motion for Protection, and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel MedOps Consulting, LLC's Discovery Responses. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
After reviewing the petition, the response, and the record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).