Supreme Court of Texas

══════════

No. 20-0849

══════════

In re ExxonMobil Corporation,

Relator

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

═══════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

JUSTICE LEHRMANN and JUSTICE BLACKLOCK did not participate 

in this opinion.

Evidence of a medical provider’s negotiated rates for private 

insurers and public payers is relevant, though not dispositive, when 

considering the reasonableness of its chargemaster rates. In re N.

Cypress Medical Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2018). This 

is true regardless of whether a party is challenging the reasonableness 

of rates secured by a medical lien, as in North Cypress, or the 

reasonableness of rates supporting a claim for personal-injury damages.

In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 244-45 (Tex. 2021). 

The facts of this case closely parallel those of K & L Auto, and that 

opinion is dispositive of the issues presented here. Applying K & L Auto

to this case, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying 
2

ExxonMobil’s discovery requests and that ExxonMobil has no adequate 

remedy on appeal. We therefore conditionally grant mandamus relief 

and order the trial court to vacate its order to the extent it conflicts with 

our holdings in K & L Auto.

The underlying personal-injury claims arose from a fire and 

explosion at ExxonMobil’s Baytown Olefins Plant. Nearly sixty 

plaintiffs sued ExxonMobil, seeking, in part, millions of dollars in 

reimbursement for past medical expenses. Many were treated by the 

same medical providers, pursuant to “letters of protection” provided by 

the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Through discovery, ExxonMobil obtained 

billing codes for the specific services the plaintiffs received, and it used 

this information to formulate discovery requests for the amounts and 

rates these providers have accepted from the majority of their patients 

for the same procedures performed around the same time.

ExxonMobil served subpoenas to nine providers whose charges 

represent the bulk of the medical expenses claimed.1 It did not seek 

individual patient records; instead, it requested broad discovery of the 

amounts and rates the providers accepted from a majority of their 

patients for the same services around the same time.

ExxonMobil filed a motion to enforce compliance with its 

discovery requests. The providers filed motions for protection, arguing 

1 The nine providers from which ExxonMobil initially requested 

discovery are Texas Brain Center; Advanced Medical Group; Memorial 

MRI & Diagnostic; Neurosurgery, PA; Advanced Diagnostics Hospital East; 

Altus Hospital; National Brain Injury Institute; Woodlake MRI & Diagnostic 

Imaging; and Elite Medical Wellness.
3

that the requests sought irrelevant information, were unduly 

burdensome, and sought trade secrets and confidential information.

While ExxonMobil’s motion to enforce was pending, the 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued In re Memorial Hermann Health 

System, holding that a request for documents related to a medical 

provider’s rates for services not received by the plaintiff is impermissibly 

overbroad. 607 S.W.3d 913, 920-21 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2020, orig. proceeding). ExxonMobil supplemented its motion to narrow 

its requests accordingly, limiting discovery to the same services the 

plaintiffs received and the same time period during which those services 

were provided and eliminating requests for rate information beyond the 

services the plaintiffs received. Specifically, ExxonMobil no longer 

sought testimony from the providers on eight of the eighteen deposition 

topics or documents in response to fourteen of the twenty-six document 

requests. It also no longer sought to enforce its requested discovery 

against two providers.2 In response to the motions for protection, 

ExxonMobil argued that the providers’ undue-burden objections were 

unsupported and, at a minimum, did not justify protection against all of 

the discovery requests.

The trial court denied ExxonMobil’s motion to enforce and 

granted motions for protection filed by the plaintiffs and four providers3

without explanation. ExxonMobil sought mandamus relief from the 

2 The two providers from which ExxonMobil no longer seeks discovery 

are Memorial MRI & Diagnostic and Elite Medical Wellness. 

3 The three providers who did not move for protection are Neurosurgery, 

PA; Altus Hospital; and National Brain Injury Institute.
4

court of appeals, which denied the petition in a nonsubstantive 

memorandum opinion.

ExxonMobil now seeks mandamus relief from this Court. For the 

reasons set out below, we conclude that ExxonMobil has demonstrated 

the trial court abused its discretion and that it lacks an adequate 

remedy on appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 

135-36 (Tex. 2004).

First, ExxonMobil contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying ExxonMobil’s motion to enforce and granting the 

motions for protection. As in K & L Auto, we first address whether the 

evidence sought is relevant. 627 S.W.3d at 248. Given that 

reasonableness is a well-settled common-law limitation on recoverable 

expenses, here, evidence of the providers’ rates is relevant to 

determining whether they are reasonable, and thus recoverable. See id. 

at 250. Because an overbroad discovery request is, essentially, one 

seeking irrelevant information, ExxonMobil’s discovery requests are not 

overbroad. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 227 S.W.3d 667, 670 

(Tex. 2007). Not only are ExxonMobil’s modified discovery requests 

narrowly tailored to focus on rates for the same services at the same 

times, like the requests in K & L Auto, they are “nearly identical to those 

we approved of in North Cypress.” 627 S.W.3d at 253 (noting that “K & L 

Auto expressly sought to narrow the requested discovery to the time 

period, devices, and services at issue in this case and approved by North 

Cypress,” which ensured its requests were “not overbroad as a matter of 

law”).
5

Further, the requests are not unduly burdensome. The providers 

failed to establish, beyond conclusory assertions, why the burden or 

expense entailed in responding to the requests outweighs the likely 

benefit, or why the requests are “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.4. And as in K & L Auto, ExxonMobil 

acted to substantially narrow the scope of its requests, and the providers 

failed to show why the narrowed requests, apart from the original 

requests, present an undue burden. See 627 S.W.3d at 253-54.

While the providers are not parties to this suit—a relevant fact 

when considering whether discovery requests present an undue burden, 

id. at 254—our rules expressly authorize discovery of relevant 

information from nonparties. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 205.3(c). And here, the 

letters of protection under which the providers have secured a financial 

interest in the resolution of these claims offset the providers’ nonparty 

status when balancing the burdens and benefits of discovery. See id. 

And as to proportionality, ExxonMobil’s requests are not unduly 

burdensome considering the high stakes in this case. Far beyond the 

$8,278.31 claimed in North Cypress, see 559 S.W.3d at 141, and even the 

$1.2 million claimed in K & L Auto, see 627 S.W.3d at 257, the plaintiffs 

here are seeking tens of millions of dollars in the underlying litigation, 

much of which consists of claims for past medical expenses. Given the 

amount of money damages claimed in this case, the providers’ financial 

interest in the form of letters of protection, and ExxonMobil’s narrow, 

supplemented motion limiting its requests to the specific amount and 

type of discovery we permitted in North Cypress, the discovery requests 

do not present an undue burden.
6

Finally, the providers’ objection that the requests seek 

confidential information or protected trade-secret information also fails. 

A protective order could easily shield the information from unnecessary 

disclosure, and the providers failed to establish why such an order would 

be insufficient to protect their interests. The trial court did not state its 

reasons for denying ExxonMobil’s motion, but to the extent it relied on 

concerns about confidentiality or trade secrets, it abused its discretion 

by failing to consider whether it could have permitted discovery while 

issuing a protective order. See K & L Auto, 627 S.W.3d at 255-56; North 

Cypress, 559 S.W.3d at 136-37.

In addition to showing the trial court abused its discretion, 

ExxonMobil has also shown it has no adequate remedy on appeal. See

Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135-36. The denied discovery was necessary 

to develop a defense that goes to the heart of ExxonMobil’s case—that 

the providers’ rates were unreasonable. See K & L Auto, 627 S.W.3d at

256-57. Additionally, the effects of the trial court’s denial of discovery 

will evade review by any higher court because the discovery ExxonMobil 

cannot obtain is from third parties, the providers, and thus cannot be 

included in the appellate record. Id. at 257. Under these circumstances, 

we conclude that ExxonMobil lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.

Because the trial court abused its discretion by denying 

ExxonMobil’s discovery requests and ExxonMobil has no appellate 

remedy, ExxonMobil is entitled to mandamus relief. Pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, we 

conditionally grant mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate 

its orders granting the motions for protection and denying ExxonMobil’s 
7

motion to enforce and to reconsider the issues in light of our opinion in 

K & L Auto. Our writ will issue only if the court fails to comply.

OPINION DELIVERED: November 19, 2021