In Re: David Latham, M.D., Dillon Paul, M.D., and Akram Abd El Kader, M.D. v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed October 1, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00950-CV

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
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).

/Bill Pedersen, III//
BILL PEDERSEN, III
240950f.p05 JUSTICE

–2–