In Re Madison Miller v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00256-CV

IN RE MADISON MILLER

Original Proceeding

From the 21st District Court
Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30654

DISSENT

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.

TOM GRAY
Chief Justice

Dissent delivered and filed January 18, 2024

In re Miller Page 2