Opinion
10-23-00256-CV
01-18-2024
IN RE MADISON MILLER
Original Proceeding From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 30654
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MATT JOHNSON, JUSTICE
The Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Relator Madison Miller on August 25, 2023, is denied.
Chief Justice Gray dissenting
Petition denied.
DISSENT
TOM GRAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
The Court denies mandamus relief in a situation I cannot distinguish from three instances in which the Supreme Court of Texas held that discovery of the same type as sought by Miller was allowed. See In Re ExxonMobil Corp., 635 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2021); In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2021); In re N. Cypress Medical Ct. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2018). I believe the Supreme Court of Texas meant what it said about the discoverability of the information sought in this proceeding. Even if some requests went too far in view of the proportionality requirement, and I am not saying that any do, it was nevertheless incumbent upon the trial court to tailor the order and grant discovery of what the Supreme Court of Texas has clearly said was discoverable. See generally Course Materials-Medical Expenses in Texas Personal Injury Cases: Recent Developments, from Recent Developments in Medical Expenses: Section 18.001/Reasonable Value/Discovery from Medical Providers (REPLAY), TexasBarCLE Webcast, (Monday, September 25, 2023). I believe the fundamental teaching of K & L Auto Crushers is that the trial court cannot deny a valid discovery request merely because some part or portion is objectionable for some unidentified reason.
Because the Court denies relief without addressing or attempting to distinguish the controlling authority, I respectfully dissent.