PAGE 1 OF 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs 

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO.: 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

DEFENDANT, DR. SANDRA GUERRA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S PRODUCTION 

OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 

AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND/OR PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COMES Defendant, DR. SANDRA GUERRA (“Defendant” and “Dr. Guerra”), and 

files this her Response to Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s 

Production of Medical Records and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ 

Counsel, in support thereof, would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

1. Dr. Guerra served notices of her intent to take the depositions upon written 

questions to the treating physicians identified on Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures and subpoena for 

the production of Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records from January 1, 2014 to the present (the 

“Third-Party Subpoenas”).1 No medical or billing records have been produced as of this date. 

1 See Exhibit 4. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 7
PAGE 2 OF 7

2. Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Medical Records2 and 

the Court held a hearing on the motion on August 11, 2022. The Court denied the motion without 

prejudice and ordered the parties to confer in good faith as to the records requested by the 

subpoenas in question.3 The parties conferred but were unable to reach a resolution.4

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court during the hearing held on August 11, 

2022 that if Dr. Guerra required Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records, “all [counsel for Dr. 

Guerra] needed to do was ask [Plaintiffs’ counsel for them.” Dr. Guerra has repeatedly requested 

these records through discovery5 to Plaintiffs even though Plaintiffs were obligated under Rule 

26(a)(1)(A)(ii) to produce these records without awaiting a discovery request. 

4. Counsel for Dr. Guerra proposed that the parties enter into an Agreed 

Confidentiality and Protective Order in the form set out in Appendix H-1 of the Local Rules.

6

 

Plaintiffs opposed the entry of such Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order,

7 and Plaintiffs’ 

counsel declared under penalty of perjury that “[they] do not agree that an Agreed Confidentiality 

and Protective Order for the discovery is necessary to provide the discovery in this matter.”8

 

Nevertheless, the Court entered the standard Confidentiality and Protective Order9 on June 23, 

2022 (the “June 23rd Confidentiality and Protective Order”). 

5. Counsel for Dr. Guerra specifically advised Plaintiffs’ counsel on August 18, 2022, 

August 25, 2022, and August 28, 2022 that “[Dr. Guerra and her counsel] do not have any issue 

2

 Doc. 90. 

3

 Doc. 98. 

4 See Exhibit 1 and Doc. 100. 

5

 Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6. 

6

 Doc. 80, ¶5.

7

 Doc. 78, p. 3. 

8

 Doc. 78-2, ¶7. 

9

 Doc. 88. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 7
PAGE 3 OF 7

with [Plaintiffs’] medical and billing records being produced subject to the Court’s [June 23rd] 

Confidentiality and Protective Order.”10 But, Plaintiffs still refused to compromise or allow for 

the production of Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records pursuant to the Third-Party Subpoenas or 

Dr. Guerra’s written discovery requests to Plaintiffs. 

6. Now Plaintiff, Melody Joy Cantu,11 has filed an Opposed Motion for Protective 

Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Production of Medical Records [Doc. 101] requesting the Court to 

enter a form of “protective order to protect Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu’s medical and billing 

records”12 that is nearly identical to the June 23rd Confidentiality and Protective Order that 

Plaintiffs previously opposed.

13

7. Plaintiff, Melody Joy Cantu’s Motion is frivolous and asserted in bad faith. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and below, Dr. Guerra requests that the Court order 

the production of Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records pursuant to the Third-Party Subpoenas 

and assess sanctions against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5). 

II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES. 

8. [The Fifth Circuit] recognizes broad and liberal treatment of the federal discovery 

rules.14 Rule 26(b)(1) provides as follows: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering 

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

10 Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3. 11 Plaintiff, Dr. Rodrigo Cantu, is not included in the Motion and no protective order regarding the 

production of Dr. Cantu’s medical or billing records is requested in the Motion. 

12 Doc. 101, p. 5. 

13 Compare Doc. 88 to Doc. 101, p. 9-17. 

14 U.S. v. Holley, 942 F.2d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 7
PAGE 4 OF 7

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within 

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.15

9. Plaintiffs identified Dr. John Seals, Steve Cervantes, Randolph Pollock, MA, LPC, 

Dr. Joann Murphy, and Deena Trevino, PhD in Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures as “witnesses” likely 

to have discoverable information:16

10. Plaintiffs also disclosed the following costs for medical treatment in their 

calculation of Plaintiffs’ purported damages which they seek to recover from Defendants:17

15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

16 Exhibit 7, Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures”). 17 Exhibit 7, p. 8. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 4 of 7
PAGE 5 OF 7

11. Although Plaintiffs have identified these specific medical providers as individuals 

with knowledge of relevant facts and specifically seek the recovery of medical costs related to the 

treatment of their alleged severe emotional distress, Plaintiff, Melody Joy Cantu, seemingly 

opposes the production of her medical and billing records pursuant to the Third-Party Subpoenas

and Dr. Guerra’s requests for written discovery to Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiff’s Motion is 

nothing more than a recitation of applicable law. Plaintiff makes no effort whatsoever in her 

Motion to apply the law to the facts in this case or otherwise explain why the documents should 

not be produced in accordance with the Third-Party Subpoenas or how or why the existing June 

23rd Confidentiality and Protective Order is not applicable to such medical and billing records. In 

fact, Plaintiff points out to the Court in her Motion that Texas Rule of Evidence 509 recognizes an 

exception to the physician-patient privilege where the party relies on the condition as part of the 

party’s claim or defense.

18 However, it is significant to note that Plaintiff does not provide any 

argument opposing the application of such exception to the production of Plaintiffs’ medical or 

billing records. 

18 Doc. 101, p. 4. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 5 of 7
PAGE 6 OF 7

12. The medical and billing records requested by Dr. Guerra fall within the exception 

of TEX.R. EVID. 509 and are not facially overbroad or irrelevant because Plaintiffs are complaining 

of emotional trauma and distress. The medical records are also relevant to the credibility of 

Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the Court’s June 23rd Confidentiality and Protective Order renders 

Plaintiff’s current request for a protective order that she previously opposed moot. 

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, DR. SANDRA GUERRA,

respectfully prays that this Court, (i) deny Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Protective Order 

Regarding Plaintiff’s Production of Medical Records; (ii) order the production of Plaintiffs’ 

medical and billing records pursuant to the Third-Party Subpoenas; (iii) order Plaintiffs to provide 

Dr. Guerra and/or any necessary third-party with a HIPAA authorization to effectuate the 

production of Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records pursuant to the Third-Party Subpoenas; (iv) 

order Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), to pay Dr. Guerra 

$5,000.00 (or $7,500.00 in the event the Court holds an oral hearing on this Motion) for the 

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Dr. Guerra as a result of Plaintiff’s frivolous and bad faith 

Motion and the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Dr. Guerra in connection with Plaintiff’s 

prior opposition to the entry June 23rd Confidentiality and Protective Order and representation by 

Plaintiff’s counsel that a confidentiality and protective order was not necessary for discovery in 

this matter;19 and (v) grant Dr. Guerra all such other and further relief, both general and special, at 

law or in equity, to which she may be entitled. 

19 Supra ¶4.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 6 of 7
PAGE 7 OF 7

Dated: September 1, 2022. Respectfully submitted,

DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.

McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 

755 E. Mulberry Avenue 

San Antonio, Texas 78212 

Telephone No.: (210) 822-6666 

Telecopier No.: (210) 822-1151 

 

By: /s/Ricardo G. Cedillo __________ 

 RICARDO G. CEDILLO

 Texas State Bar No. 04043600 

 rcedillo@lawdcm.com

 BRANDY C. PEERY

 Texas State Bar No. 24057666

 bpeery@lawdcm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, DR. SANDRA 

GUERRA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 20th day of July 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

electronic notification of such filing to the parties on record. 

 /s/Ricardo G. Cedillo 

RICARDO G. CEDILLO

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104 Filed 09/01/22 Page 7 of 7