Defendants’ Joint Response to Relators’ Motion to Compel – Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES and STATE OF TEXAS 

ex rel. DANIEL W. ELLIOTT, M.D. and 

LISA A. MINSLOFF, M.D.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOUTHEAST TEXAS MEDICAL 

ASSOCIATES, LLP; STEWARD HEALTH 

CARE SYSTEM; ONPOINT LAB, L.L.C.; 

BAPTIST HOSPITALS OF SOUTHEAST 

TEXAS; MUHAMMAD AZIZ, M.D.; 

JAMES HOLLY, M.D.; MARY CASTRO, 

M.D.; VIJAY KUMAR, M.D.; MICHAEL 

THOMAS, M.D.; SYED ANWAR, M.D.; 

CAESAR DEIPARINE, M.D.; RONALD 

PALANG, M.D.; ABSAR QURESHI, M.D.; 

DEAN HALBERT, M.D.; and WILLIAM 

GEORGE, M.D.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-00329

JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT RESPONSE TO RELATORS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendants Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP (“SETMA”); Steward Health Care 

System LLC (“Steward”); OnPoint Lab, L.L.C. (“OnPoint”); Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas 

(“Baptist” or “Baptist Hospital”); Muhammad Aziz, M.D.; James Holly, M.D.; Mary Castro, M.D.; 

Vijay Kumar, M.D.; Michael Thomas, M.D.; Syed Anwar, M.D.; Caesar Deiparine, M.D.; Ronald 

Palang, M.D.; Absar Qureshi, M.D.; and Dean Halbert, M.D. hereby file their response to Relators’ 

Motion to Compel Defendants’ Compliance with Initial Mandatory Disclosures (“Motion”) and 

would respectfully show the Court as follows:

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 113 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1070
Defendants’ Joint Response to Relators’ Motion to Compel – Page 2

I. BACKGROUND

Relators initiated this lawsuit by filing in the Marshall Division in April 2020 where it was 

assigned to Judge Gilstrap. On September 1, 2023, Judge Gilstrap signed an order transferring this 

case from the Marshall Division to the Beaumont Division. Dkt. No. 94. On September 5, 2023, 

this Court issued an Order Setting Civil Action for Rule 16 Management Conference (the “Order”)

that ordered the parties to appear in Beaumont on October 11, 2023, for a case management 

conference. Dkt No. 95. The Order further directed the parties to complete initial mandatory 

disclosures by October 2, 2023. At this time, Defendants’ Joint Motion for a Temporary Stay of

Discovery (“Joint Stay Motion”) and their respective motions to dismiss, which had been filed in 

June 2023 while this case remained before Judge Gilstrap, were still pending. See Dkt. Nos. 56,

58, 60–63. Through the Joint Stay Motion, Defendants sought an order temporarily staying 

discovery until after the Court ruled on the motion to transfer the case from Marshall to Beaumont 

and until after resolving Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 60, at 5.

On September 1 and again on September 29, Defendants informed Relators that Defendants 

believed Judge Truncale should be given an opportunity to consider the motion to stay before any 

party was required to make further productions. On October 2, 2023, Relators made an initial 

production of documents. On October 3, 2023, Relators’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel to 

complain that Defendants had not yet produced documents. Mot., Ex. A (Dkt. No. 102-1, at 6).

The parties scheduled a telephone conference for October 5, 2023, to meet and confer regarding 

this issue. During the meet and confer, Relators’ counsel informed Defendants’ counsel that they 

intended to file a motion to compel Defendants’ production of documents pursuant to the Order. 

Id. (Dkt No. 102-1, at 3). Given that the October 11 case management conference was less than a 

week away and that Defendants’ Joint Stay Motion remained outstanding, Defendants informed 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 113 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1071
Defendants’ Joint Response to Relators’ Motion to Compel – Page 3

Relators that addressing their complaints before this Court at the October 11 conference would be 

the most efficient use of the parties’ time. Id. (Dkt. No. 102-1, at 1–2). 

Relators disagreed. Later that day, they filed the Motion requesting that the “Court order 

Defendants to comply with the Order and produce all documents ‘relevant to a claim or defense of 

any party’ prior to the Rule 16 Management Conference on October 11, 2023.” Dkt. No. 102, at 

3.

On October 11, 2023, the parties appeared before the Court for the case management 

conference. The Court raised the issue of pending discovery issues and advised the parties to 

reasonably resolve their discovery disputes. The Court noted the complexity of this case and the 

challenges it may pose to discovery efforts, suggested that a rolling document production would 

be appropriate, and extended the discovery and case management schedule by more than six 

months. However, the Court did not make any rulings on Relators’ Motion nor did the Court rule 

on Defendants’ Joint Stay Motion. The following day, it referred Relator’s Motion to U.S. 

Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson. Dkt. No. 107. By October 17, 2023, Defendants had made 

an initial production of documents and served them on Relators. Dkts. 101, 109-111.

II. ARGUMENT

Defendants request the Court deny the Motion which was unnecessary when made and 

which has since become moot. Relators requested an order compelling Defendants to make a 

production of documents before the October 11, 2023 case management conference. “[A]n action 

is moot when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party.” Salgado v. Fed. 

Bureau of Prisons, 220 F. App’x 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Cloud v. Cumulus Media New 

Holdings, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-1673-N, 2023 WL 2700722, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2023) 

(denying motion to compel depositions as moot where the parties reached agreement on the 

deposition date); St. Gregory Cathedral Sch. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 6:12-cv-739, 2013 WL 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 113 Filed 10/19/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1072
Defendants’ Joint Response to Relators’ Motion to Compel – Page 4

12214144, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2013) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response as 

moot where the defendants’ supplemental responses indicated defendants “agreed to produce the 

requested information”). Here, the Court cannot meaningfully grant the relief Relators’ requested

relief for two reasons: (1) the October 11, 2023 case management conference was held over a week 

ago (and Judge Truncale declined, at that conference, to grant the motion to compel); and (2) 

Defendants made the requested initial productions on or before October 17, 2023. Therefore, the

Motion is moot, and Defendants respectfully request that it be denied.

[Remainder of page left blank intentionally]

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 113 Filed 10/19/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1073
Defendants’ Joint Response to Relators’ Motion to Compel – Page 5

Dated: October 19, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ David W. Klaudt

David W. Klaudt

State Bar No. 00796073

david.klaudt@gtlaw.com

James E. Peacock

State Bar No. 00791419

James.Peacock@gtlaw.com

Jared Weir

State Bar No. 24075253

jared.weir@gtlaw.com

Michael Besser

State Bar No. 24105464

michael.besser@gtlaw.com

Alex E. Hartzell

State Bar No. 24126522

alex.hartzell@gtlaw.com

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200

Dallas, Texas 75201

Tel: (214) 665-3600

Fax: (214) 665-3601

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

SOUTHEAST TEXAS MEDICAL 

ASSOCIATES, LLP; MUHAMMAD AZIZ,

M.D.; MARY CASTRO, M.D.; VIJAY 

KUMAR, M.D.; MICHAEL THOMAS,

M.D.; SYED ANWAR, M.D.; CAESAR 

DEIPARINE, M.D.; RONALD PALANG,

M.D.; ABSAR QURESHI, M.D.; and DEAN 

HALBERT, M.D.

/s/ J. Thad Heartfield

J. Thad Heartfield

State Bar No. 09346800

M. Dru Montgomery

State Bar No. 24010800

THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM

2195 Dowlen Road

Beaumont, TX 77706

Telephone: 409-866-3318

Facsimile: 409-866-5789

dru@heartfieldlawfirm.com

thad@heartfieldlawfirm.com

Edward B. Diskant

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

1 Vanderbilt Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Tel: (212) 547-5400

Fax: (646) 390-0877

ediskant@mwe.com

Jennifer B. Routh

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

500 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Tel: (202) 756-8000

Fax: (202) 756-8087

jrouth@mwe.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,

Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 113 Filed 10/19/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1074
Defendants’ Joint Response to Relators’ Motion to Compel – Page 6

/s/ Dennis L. Roossien, Jr.

Dennis L. Roossien, Jr.

Tex. Bar No. 00784873

Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.

500 N. Akard, Ste. 3800

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 855-7535

droossien@munsch.com

ATTORNEY FOR ONPOINT LAB, L.L.C.

/s/ Thomas G. Yoxall

Thomas G. Yoxall 

State Bar No. 00785304 

tyoxall@lockelord.com 

Nicholas S. Graber 

State Bar No. 24122918 

nick.graber@lockelord.com 

LOCKE LORD LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 

Dallas, Texas 75201-6776 

(214) 740-8000 – Telephone 

(214) 740-8800 – Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR STEWARD HEALTH 

CARE SYSTEM LLC

/s/ Bruce M. Partain

BRUCE M. PARTAIN 

State Bar No. 15548400

WELLS PEYTON PARTAIN 

BALDO & LIGHTY, L.L.P. 

P.O. Box 3708 

Beaumont, Texas 77704 

Telephone (409) 838-2644 

Facsimile (409) 838-0416 

Email: bpartain@wellspeyton.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT JAMES 

HOLLY, M.D.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 19, 2023, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via 

email.

/s/ David W. Klaudt

David W. Klaudt

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 113 Filed 10/19/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1075