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 et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-CV-00329

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

RELATORS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ 

COMPLIANCE WITH INITIAL MANDATORY DISCLOSURES

As the parties are aware, the Court’s September 5, 2023 Order Setting Civil Action 

for Rule 16 Management Conference required the parties to complete their Initial 

Mandatory Disclosures (including the production of relevant documents) by October 2, 

2023.1 See Ex. A. Relators fully complied with the Order and timely produced more than 

1,000 documents. Defendants have largely refused to produce any documents, let alone all 

documents “relevant to a claim or defense of any party.”2 Dkt. No. 95 at 2. The parties 

conferred regarding Defendants’ failure to produce the required documents on October 5, 

2023. At that conference, Defendants confirmed that they are holding back relevant 

1 The parties held a Rule 26(f) conference before this case was transferred to this Court. For purposes of 

calculating deadlines in the Order, the parties agreed to use September 22, 2023, as the triggering date for 

Initial Mandatory Disclosures. See Ex. A. 

2 OnPoint produced a single one-page document, the SETMA Defendants produced 20 documents that are 

relevant to a defense, and Dr. Holly produced two documents that are relevant to a defense.

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 102 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 971
2

documents and refuse to produce them based on a pending motion to stay discovery. The 

Order and the Local Rules reject this argument.

The Order dictates that Initial Mandatory Disclosures “shall occur, before the Rule 

16 Management Conference, so that counsel is in a position to intelligently discuss 

additional required discovery, and scheduling of the case.” Dkt. No. 95 at 3. The Rule 16 

Management Conference is set for October 11, 2023. To facilitate productive discussion at 

the Rule 16 Management Conference, Relators request an order from the Court compelling 

Defendants to comply with the Order and produce all documents “relevant to a claim or 

defense of any party” prior to October 11, 2023. 

Defendants believe they are excused from the Court’s Order because they filed a 

motion to stay discovery based on their pending motions to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 60. The 

Local Rules reject this argument. See Local Rule CV-26 (noting that, without a court order, 

“a party is not excused from responding to discovery because there are pending motions to 

dismiss”). Defendants know as much. Indeed, in their motion to stay, Defendants stated

that they had “received [Judge Gilstrap’s] June 15 Scheduling Order” which ordered the 

production of all relevant documents, and they “intend[ed] to adhere to [that order] unless 

and until the Court grants relief pursuant th[e] [m]otion or otherwise.” Dkt. No. 60 at 2, 

n.1. While Defendants were presumably willing to comply with Judge Gilstrap’s discovery 

order prior to a ruling on their motion to stay, they are not willing to grant this Court the 

same deference. 

It goes without saying that a party is not entitled to relief merely because the party 

makes the request. Put simply, there is no basis to delay the Initial Mandatory Disclosures.

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 102 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 972
3

Therefore, Relators request 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.

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 102 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 973
4

Dated: October 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

REESE MARKETOS LLP

By: /s/ Joshua M. Russ

Joshua M. Russ 

Texas Bar No. 24074990 

josh.russ@rm-firm.com

Adam Sanderson 

Texas State Bar No. 24056264 

adam.sanderson@rm-firm.com 

Andrew O. Wirmani

Texas Bar No. 24052287

andrew.wirmani@rm-firm.com

Tyler J. Bexley 

Texas Bar No. 24073923

tyler.bexley@rm-firm.com 

Brett S. Rosenthal

Texas Bar No. 24080096

brett.rosenthal@rm-firm.com 

Allison N. Cook

Texas Bar No. 24091695

allison.cook@rm-firm.com

750 N. Saint Paul St. Ste. 600

Dallas, Texas 75201-3201

Telephone: (214) 382-9810

Facsimile: (214) 501-0731

MASTROGIOVANNI MERSKY & FLYNN, P.C.

 

By: /s/ Joseph J. Mastrogiovanni 

Joseph J. Mastrogiovanni, Jr.

Texas Bar No. 13184380

jmastro@mastromersky.com

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1250

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 922-8800

Facsimile: (214) 922-8801

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORS

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 102 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 974
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was filed on October 

5, 2023, through the ECF system, and will thereby be sent electronically to the registered

participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.

 /s/ Allison N. Cook

Allison N. Cook

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I conferred with counsel for Defendants on October 5, 2023.

During that conference, counsel for Defendants confirmed that despite the Court’s Order 

Setting Civil Action for Rule 16 Management Conference, Defendants are holding back 

documents that are relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties and refuse to produce 

those documents because they filed a motion to stay discovery. Lead counsel, Joshua M. 

Russ, was unable to attend the conference because he is in a six-week federal jury trial. 

 /s/ Tyler J. Bexley

Tyler J. Bexley

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 102 Filed 10/05/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 975