## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 24

- 00050

- CV

IN RE TEXAS REGIONAL CLINIC AND MEMORIAL MRI & DIAGNOSTIC

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opi n io n by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

R elato r s , Texas Regional Clinic and Memorial MRI & Diagnostic , filed a petition fo r a wri t of mandamus requesting that th is Court vacat e a discover y or der dated May 2, 2024, entered by the trial cour t i n Panola Count y
. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery respons es from Texas Reg ional Clinic and Memorial MRI ,

we deny the petition

. I. Factual Background In the underlyin g act ion, Ant h ony Berry sued R aven Cranford for personal injuries arising out of a n automobile accident. Th e accident occurred on March 15, 2021. Followi ng th e

acc ident, Berry sought treatment from both Texas Regional Cli nic and Memoria l MRI. Texas Regi onal Cli nic billed Berry over $99,000.00 , and Memorial MRI billed Berry over $5,500.00
for that medical treatme n t. C ranford conten ds those amounts are “ unreaso nable and excessive. ”
To prove his c laim that those amounts are both unre asonabl e a nd e xces sive, C ranford sent subpoenas duce s tecum to both Texas Regional Cli nic and Memorial MRI , seeking information

as to Berry ’ s treatme nt from th e accident

. On March 1, 2024, Cranford serve d Mem orial M R I with a subpoena d u ces tecum

. According to the o ffi cer ’ s r eturn from that serv ice, “ Geor ge Martinez ” was served on behalf of
Memorial MR I

. There is no i nd icati on on th e r e turn as to Martinez ’ s sta tus with M emorial MRI

. Notably, a lthough th e o fficer ’ s r eturn states M ar tinez i s a “ corporate representative of Memorial
MRI , ” the return does not provide that he is a c orporate represent ative author ized to acce pt3

servi ce on behalf of Memorial MRI

. 1 Likewis e , on March 4, 2024, C ran ford served Texas Regional Clinic

. Acco rding to the o fficer ’ s r eturn, the o fficer served “ V eronica. ” Again, he r
statu s with Texas Regional Clinic is unclear, an d th e r etur n doe s not even stat e whether she is employed by Texas Regio nal Cl inic. F urther, her las t name is not stat ed in that return. Despite those de fici encies, Texas Region al Clinic and Memorial MRI did not move to quash those su bpoenas , an d the record indicates they did not respond at all

. 2 As s tated in the subpoenas, t h e deadline f or Texas Regional Clinic and Memorial MRI to comply was March 29 , 2024.
On April 26, 2024, approxi mately e ig ht week s after serving those subpoenas, Cra nford
moved to comp el disco very responses f rom both Texas Regi onal Clinic and Memorial M RI. The
trial court set a h eari ng on th e motion for May 2, 2 024. Counsel for Texas Regi on al C li nic and
Memorial MRI attempted t o attend th e hearing but was unable to attend due to hazardous ro ad conditions, whic h included rain and flooding. On the same day , the trial cour t o rdered Texas Regi onal Clinic and Memoria l M RI to respond to th e subp oenas within seven days

. Texas Regi onal Clinic a n d Memori al M RI requested a rehearing and recon sideration , and that request was denied on May 14, 2024

. Trial in this matter is c urr ently set for May 20, 2024.
II
. Standard for Mandamus R elief

“ Mandamus is an e x traordinary remedy requi ring the relator t o show that (1) the trial
court abused its dis cretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequ ate remedy on appeal .” In re USAA

1 B oth Texas Regional Clin ic and Mem orial MRI are co r po rati ons. Cor p orations may be served throug h the ir regis t ered agent, pres ident, or vice president. See T EX

. B U S

. O RGS

. C ODE A NN

. §§ 5.201(b), 5.255(1).

2 The Relat ors do not disp ute that they had actual not ic e of those outstanding sub po enas and that Cranf ord sen t no tice s to thei r ind ividual addresses.4

Gen. Inde m. Co. , 62 4 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex . 2021) (orig. proceeding ) (citin g In re Pruden t i a l Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S .W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceedi ng)). “Mandamus reli ef is only appropriate when the relators have established tha t only one outcome in t he trial co urt was permissible u nder the law.” In re Murr in Bros . 1885, Ltd. , 6 0 3 S.W.3d 53, 56 (Tex. 201 9) (orig. proceed i ng). While mandamus review is not always available in disc overy dis putes, m andamus
revi ew is avail able to va cate an order compellin g discovery under certain circum stances where a party has no adeq uate rem edy wi t h a n appea l. See In re Pi lgrim ’ s Pride Cor p
. , 204 S.W. 3d 831, 834 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding).

“ When reviewing matters committ e d to a trial court’s discre tion, a n appellate court may

not su bstitute its own j u dgment for the tria l court ’ s judgment.” In re Nitla S.A. de C.V. , 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer , 82 7 S.W.2d 833, 83 9 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceed ing)). As a result, we may not “set aside the trial

c ou rt’s [ord er] unle ss it i s clear from the record th a t the trial cour t could only reach one
decision.” Id.
III
. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
The Texas Rule s of Civil P rocedure provide the co mpliance requirement s for third

- party subpoena s. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P

. 176

. 1

– .8. Under these rul e s, and a s a general rule, a non
- party must comply with a subpoena. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 176. 6(a). Where a non
- party has a n objection

to a su bpoena, that no n
- party is directed to ob ject before the de adl ine to compl y. See T E X

. R.
C I V

. P. 176. 6 ( d ).5

R u le 176.6(d) of th e T exas Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows :
A person commanded [ 3 ] to produc e and per mit inspect i on or co pying of design ated docume nts and things may se rve on the party requestin g issuance of th e subpoe na

— b efore the time spec if

ie d for compliance

— w r itten objections to producing any or all of the designate d materials.
T EX

. R. C I V

. P. 176. 6( d ). T h is rule protects non

- part ies becau se , once an objection i s filed, that

“ person nee d not comply with th e pa rt o f a subpoena to whi ch ob j ection is made as p rovided in this paragraph unless ordered to do so by the court. ” Id.
Furtherm ore, wher e a non
- pa r ty seeks to challenge th e service of a subpoena , ano ther potential av enue for this challeng e i s through a mot i o n to quas h. See Fuentes v . Z aragoza , 555
S.W. 3d 141 , 159 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1 st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (recognizin g “ [t]he pr oper tim e to challeng e service of p rocess is at the tria l level t hr ough a motion to quash ” ). U nder the
pres en t f acts, Texas Reg i o n a l Clinic and Memo rial M RI did not objec t un der Rule 176.6(d), did

not comply with the subp oe nas , and di d not move to qua sh. Inste ad, they waited for approxi mately eight weeks from receivin g those subpoenas , o r unti l a motion to comp el w as filed , to ac t on t heir c laim s of de fe cti ve service. As a result , we cannot find that the trial court
abused its discre tion in enter ing the M a y 2, 2024 , order compelling production

. 4

3 N ota b ly, t he word “command [ ed ] ” is used instead of “ served. ” The Relators argue that they have no obligation to c omply at all because they were not properly “ served , ” an d the se rules only app ly to a n entit y that is “ serv ed. ” Thi s is not the p lain reading of R ule 1 76.6(d)

.
4 The majority of c ase s Relat ors cit e in support of t h eir petition involve claims of improper service w here a default judgmen t wa s g ranted. See Asset Pro t. & Sec . Serv s
. , L.P. v. Ar m ij o , 57 0 S.W. 3d 377 , 386 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2019 , no p e t .) ; Barn es v. Frost Nat ’ l Bank , 840 S. W.2d 747 , 750 (Tex . App.

— San A ntonio 1992, no writ); Ga tlin v. Dibre ll , 11 S.W. 908 , 90 9 ( Tex. [ Comm ’ n Op.] 1889); Param ount Cre dit , Inc. v. Mo nt

gomery , 420 S

. W.3 d 226, 231 (Tex . App.

— Ho uston [1 st Dist .] 2013, no pet

. ); Pl easant Homes, Inc. v. Allied Bank of Dall a s , 776 S.W. 2d 153, 154 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) (orig. proceed ing) ; Primate Con str

. , Inc . v. Silver , 884 S.W.2d 151, 15 2 (Tex. 19 94) ( per curiam) ; R ee d El s e vier, Inc . v. Carrollt o n - Farmers Branch Indep. S ch. D ist

. , 180 S.W.3d 903, 905

– 0 6 (Tex. App.

—6

IV
. Conclu sion
Be cause Texas Regional Clinic and M emorial MRI have not de mo nstrate d entitle ment to
this ex traord inar y remedy, w e deny their petition for a writ of mandamu s
.

Charles van Cleef Justice
Date Submitted: May 1 6 , 202 4 Date Decided: M a y 1 6 , 2024

Dallas 2005, pet s . denied) ; Turbo Rest s. , LL C v. Reid ’ s Re frigeration , Inc

. , 657 S.W.3 d 490, 50 2 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2022, no pet.)

. The other cases appl y to u nique situat ion s. See I n re D rs. ’ Hosp. of L aredo , Lt d . P ’ s hip , 2 S.W.3d 504 , 506

– 07 (Tex. App

. — S a n A ntonio 1 999, orig. proceedin g ) (granting mandamus relief a nd find ing the tr ial court ’ s o rdered produ c tion of perso nal records was an abuse o f discre ti on) ; In re Prude nti al Ins. C o. of Am

. , 148 S.W. 3d 124, 140

– 41 (T ex. 2004) (orig. proce eding) (granting man damus relief and enforcing a te nant ’ s w aiver of the righ t to a jury trial ) ; Walker v. Pa cker , 827 S.W.2d 833, 844 (Tex. 1992) (ori g. proceeding) (fi nd ing the relators di d not mee t the burden for mandam us re li e f o n two discovery ma tter s ) ; Wohler v. La Buena Vida in W

. Hills, Inc. , 855 S. W.2d 891, 892 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Wor th 1993, no writ) ( findi n g service was proper). At leas t one case foun d no abuse of d is cr etion in com pel ling the deposition of a n on
- party. In re To tal Petrochemic als & R efin. U SA, Inc. , 595 S.W.3d 904, 907 (Tex. App.

— H ous ton [1 4th Dist .] 2020, orig. proceeding). No ne of these cases allow n on
- parties to avoi d raising a curable defect i n serv ice th rough an objection or a mo tion to quash with a n i mpe nd ing trial date

.