Case Reinstated, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, and 

Memorandum Opinion filed February 16, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00387-CV

IN RE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

TEXAS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-33529

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the 

Honorable Tamika Craft-Demming, presiding judge of the 189th District Court of 

Harris County, to vacate the trial court’s February 7, 2023 “Order Denying 

METRO’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Medical/Medicare/Insurance 
2

Authorizations and Respond to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 12.”1 We determine that 

relator is entitled to relief. See Tex. R. App. 52.8(c).

BACKGROUND

On June 4, 2021, Ruiz filed the underlying lawsuit against METRO for claims 

involving personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident with a METRO 

bus in August 2020. In her petition, Ruiz asserted that she “was caused to suffer 

injuries to her head, neck, spine, shoulders, arms, wrists, back, hips, legs and ankles, 

and to incur the following damages in the amount of $417,000.00 and property 

damage in the amount of $25,000.00.” Ruiz claimed in her initial disclosures that 

she has approximately $94,137.76 in medical expenses arising from the accident. 

On August 18, 2021, METRO propounded written discovery to Ruiz, 

inquiring about prior claims and the identity of all healthcare providers who treated 

Ruiz within five years of the August 8, 2020 incident. METRO also sought executed 

medical and insurance authorizations from Ruiz. On September 20, 2021, Ruiz 

made the following responses and objections to interrogatory numbers 9 and 12: 

Interrogatory 9: 

9. Other than those listed above, identify by name and address any 

other medical care facilities in which you have been treated or 

examined and any healers, physicians, medical doctors, osteopaths, 

chiropractors, or other healthcare providers who have examined or 

treated you for any injury or illness in the five (5) years immediately 

1 Originally, relator requested mandamus relief from respondent Scot Dollinger’s May 16, 

2022 order denying relator’s motion to compel. Because Judge Dollinger ceased to hold office 

after December 31, 2022, this Court abated the proceeding to permit respondent’s successor, the 

Honorable Tamika Craft-Demming, to consider the decision regarding relator’s request for relief. 
3

prior to the incident and since the incident made the basis of this 

lawsuit.

Answer: Plaintiff has no responsive information at this time.

Interrogatory 12:

12. Have you filed any type of claim for being injured during the ten 

years prior to this incident or since this incident? If so, state with 

whom, the year, and the nature of the injury.

Answer: Plaintiff is unable to comply with the discovery request 

because it is vague, unclear, and thus, Plaintiff cannot determine with 

reasonable specificity the information requested. The discovery 

request is overly broad, lacks definition, or is not reasonably limited in 

scope or time. Plaintiff has not been given a sufficient amount of time 

for compliance with the request. The discovery request is unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative. The information sought by the discovery 

request[] is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, 

less burdensome, or less expensive. The burden or expense of 

compliance with the discovery request outweighs its likely benefit, 

taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 

the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in this 

litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery request in 

resolving the issues. The discovery request asks for information, or for 

documents or other tangible things, that are not within the possession, 

custody, or control of Plaintiff. The information sought by the 

discovery request has already been provided by Plaintiff in another 

form. The discovery request[] is unreasonably frivolous, oppressive, 

or harassing. The discovery request calls for data or information that 

exists in electronic or magnetic form, which cannot be obtained, 

retrieved or produced through reasonable efforts in the form requested, 

as provided by Rule 196.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. If an 

order is entered herein directing Plaintiff to comply with such request, 

Plaintiff requests that the requesting party pay the reasonable expenses 

required to retrieve and produce the information. The discovery 

request is an invasion of personal, constitutional, or property rights. 

The discovery request asks for information that is not relevant and is 

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or [sic] admissible 
4

evidence. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that same 

requires a narrative response not suitable for an interrogatory. As 

phrased, this request appears to be a “fishing expedition” designed for 

the sole purpose of fishing for information and/or otherwise requiring 

Defendant to provide a statement of all of its available proof.

With respect to the request to provide executed authorizations, Ruiz made no 

objection and indicated “please see attached executed authorization.” Ruiz, 

however, did not provide the executed authorizations with her production responses. 

METRO filed a motion to compel, seeking Ruiz’s full response to 

Interrogatories 9 and 12, and executed medical and insurance authorizations. 

METRO argued that Ruiz’s responses to written discovery were late and, 

consequently, Ruiz waived any objections.2 METRO contended that Ruiz claimed 

injury to her shoulders, neck, chest and lower back as a result of a “minor impact 

which merely caused a scratch[] on the bumper of her vehicle.” In support of its 

contention, METRO attached a picture of the damage to Ruiz’s vehicle which was 

taken at the scene. METRO further argued that Ruiz had been “less than candid” in 

her sworn answers to interrogatories. METRO noted that during Ruiz’s deposition 

on April 19, 2022, she testified that she had been involved in prior automobile 

accidents in 2017, 2018 and 2019, for which she had made personal injury claims 

against third parties and/or her auto insurer, State Farm Insurance Company; 

however, Ruiz testified that she was unable to recall where she had been treated for 

her prior medical complaints, except for treatment in 2019 at West Houston Medical 

Hospital. Next, METRO asserted that an Insurance Service Office (“ISO”)3claim 

2

 Ruiz’s responses were due on September 17, 2021 (30th day) but were not sent until 

September 20, 2021. 

3

 The ISO provides insurance companies claim information made by an individual.
5

search on Ruiz revealed six prior claims since 2017.4 METRO attached as an exhibit 

to its motion, the ISO insurance claim search on Ruiz and three “medical and 

insurance authorizations.” METRO maintained that to properly evaluate Ruiz’s 

alleged injuries in this matter, as well as, the cause of such alleged injuries, a jury 

needs to see all of Ruiz’s medical records, especially records from prior automobile 

accidents and claims for injury because Ruiz has alleged the same injuries in this 

lawsuit as she has asserted in prior claims. 

In her response to the motion to compel, Ruiz claimed that she answered 

interrogatory number 9 to the best of her ability. She further asserted that she 

testified at her deposition that she could not remember the names of her prior 

healthcare providers. Thus, Ruiz maintained that her answer “Plaintiff has no 

responsive information at this time” was appropriate because she had no recollection 

of these providers. As for interrogatory number 12, Ruiz asserted her discovery 

objections “are valid.” Lastly, Ruiz contended that the requested authorizations 

were previously signed and returned to METRO. 

4

 The ISO report revealed that on May 9, 2017, Ruiz was involved in an automobile 

collision and made claims for “back pain.” On October 20, 2017, Ruiz was involved in another 

automobile collision and made claims for “arm/neck/back/chest/ankle/back” pain. On October 13, 

2018, Ruiz was involved in another automobile collision and made claims that are not detailed in 

the ISO report. On December 22, 2019, Ruiz was involved in an automobile collision and made 

injury claims for “head injury-other, leg injury-left leg injury” and was transported by EMS to 

HCA Houston West. On April 4, 2020, Ruiz was involved in another automobile collision for 

which she claimed injuries of “headaches, neck and back pain.” The ISO reports indicated that 

Ruiz was treated by several healthcare providers for the April 2020 incident, including Altus 

Houston Hospital, Sterling Initiatives, Horizon Chiropractor, Wooodlake MRI and Diagnostic 

Imaging, Alliance Medical Specialists, and Sterling Pharmacy. 
6

On May 16, 2022, without the necessity of an oral hearing, the trial court 

denied METRO’s motion to compel. This petition for writ of mandamus followed.

Because Judge Dollinger ceased to hold office after December 31, 2022, this 

Court abated the proceeding to permit respondent’s successor, the Honorable 

Tamika Craft-Demming, to consider the decision regarding relator’s request for 

relief. 

On February 7, 2023, Judge Craft-Demming signed an “Order Denying 

METRO’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Medical/Medicare/Insurance 

Authorizations and Respond to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 12.” 

We reinstate this original proceeding.

MANDAMUS STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ordinarily, to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that 

the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and that the relator lacks an adequate 

remedy by appeal. In re Dawson, 550 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tex. 2018) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, 

unreasonably, or without regard to guiding legal principles. In re J.B. Hunt Transp., 

Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 293–94 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has no 

discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Id. at 

294; In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Thus, the trial court’s failure to analyze or apply the law correctly 

constitutes an abuse of discretion. See In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 

708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding).
7

Relator also must demonstrate that it does not have an adequate remedy at 

law, such as a remedy by an appeal. See In re J.B. Hunt Transp., 492 S.W.3d at 299. 

The adequacy of appeal as a remedy for an alleged clear abuse of discretion in an 

interlocutory ruling involves a balance of jurisprudential considerations that 

“implicate both public and private interests.” In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 

315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (internal quotations omitted); 

see also In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 136. We determine the adequacy 

of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the 

detriments. See In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

“[A]n appeal will not be an adequate remedy where the party’s ability to 

present a viable claim or defense at trial is vitiated or severely compromised by the 

trial court’s discovery error.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992); 

accord Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995).

ABUSE OF DISCRETION 

METRO argues, when the trial court denied its motion to compel Ruiz to fully 

answer interrogatories regarding prior injury claims and medical treatment as well 

as execute medical, Medicare, and insurance authorizations, that the trial court 

abused its discretion. METRO contends that Ruiz’s medical expenses of $94,137.76 

are not in line with the very minor impact that occurred in August 2020 between 

Ruiz and the METRO bus. The photographs showing minimal damage (a scratch

on the fender of Ruiz’s vehicle) corroborate METRO’s contention. METRO further 

asserts that its medical expert has indicated that “it is unclear to this reviewer how 

Ms. Ruiz sustained so many injuries in so many different locations as a result of this 
8

type of incident.” Moreover, METRO maintains that the ISO claim report presented 

by METRO as part of its motion to compel indicated several claims made by Ruiz, 

including an incident that happened just four months before the METRO incident, 

which Ruiz did not provide information about in her sworn response or at her 

deposition. METRO contends that this demonstrates Ruiz’s lack of candor. 

METRO asserts that Ruiz has Medicaid, and it believes that Ruiz had Medicaid at 

the time of the 2017 accident. METRO contends that since Ruiz lacks information 

about these prior accidents, a medical authorization release to obtain Medicaid 

records would show who treated her, when, and the records and costs of such 

treatment. As for interrogatory number 12, METRO asserts that Ruiz’s objections 

were untimely and, thus, waived. Additionally, METRO argues that Ruiz’s 

objections improperly attempt to evade the discovery requested by asserting that the 

information has already been provided without demonstrating where or how it was 

provided. 

In her response to the petition for writ of mandamus, Ruiz argues that “the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion because it refused to compel responses to 

written discovery it had never seen before.” Ruiz maintains that because METRO 

did not attach as an exhibit the requested written discovery and/or Ruiz’s answers,

the trial court did not have a proper record before it on which to base its decision. 

Thus, Ruiz maintains that the trial court did not err in denying METRO relief. Ruiz 

did not address in her response to the petition for writ of mandamus the medical 

authorizations and her failure to execute the same. 

METRO asserts in its reply that Ruiz’s claim that the trial court had not seen 

the discovery requests in simply false. METRO contends that the requests, with 

responses, were directly before the trial court as they were inserted verbatim in the 
9

body of the motion to compel. METRO argues that Ruiz provides no authority for 

requiring an exhibit with all discovery responses despite those at issue being 

presented in the body of the motion. METRO also maintains that Ruiz offers no 

support for her failure to make timely objections, or support for reasonable 

objections being obscured by numerous unfounded objections, and offers no 

argument that good cause was shown for waiver. 

METRO has established that the discovery requested (both interrogatories and 

completed authorizations) is central to METRO’s defense in this case, as the 

requested discovery provides a record of Ruiz’s medical history from prior 

accidents. Contrary to Ruiz’s contention, the trial court had the relevant discovery 

requests and responses as they were fully incorporated in the body of the motion to 

compel. In fact, in Ruiz’s response to the motion, Ruiz referenced the trial court to 

“Plaintiff’s objections included in Defendant’s motion.” Ruiz provides no authority 

for her current contention before this Court that the discovery was required to be 

attached as an exhibit to METRO’s motion to compel. 

METRO has demonstrated Ruiz’s answer to interrogatory number 9 (i.e., that 

she had no responsive information at this time) was less than forthcoming. Ruiz 

testified at deposition that she was involved in accidents in 2017, 2018, and 2019, 

but was unable to recall any details about her injuries or treatment. None of Ruiz’s 

medical records from the prior accidents were available or provided to METRO, and

her interrogatory answers were silent as to any prior accidents. Even after providing 

vague information at her deposition, Ruiz never supplemented her interrogatory 

answers. Additionally, the ISO claim report presented by METRO as part of the 

motion to compel revealed Ruiz had made claims from losses on April 4, 2020, 

December 12, 2019, October 31, 2018, and October 20, 2017.
10

Moreover, METRO has demonstrated that that Ruiz’s responses and/or 

objections to its written discovery were untimely as they were provided more than 

30 days after service. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(e); 197.2(a) (written responses due 

within 30 days after service of the interrogatories). Ruiz’s conclusory declaration 

that her responses were timely is not supported by the record. As such, Ruiz waived 

her objections to interrogatory number 12. 

Finally, METRO has demonstrated that, although no objection was lodged, 

Ruiz did not provide the executed authorizations to METRO. Ruiz has made no 

argument before this Court as to why they should not be provided. 

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when 

it denied METRO’s motion to compel.

NO ADEQUATE APPELLATE REMEDY

METRO has established that mandamus is the appropriate remedy because its 

ability to present a viable defense of Ruiz’s medical claims at trial would be vitiated 

or severely compromised without the requested discovery. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d 

at 843. Accordingly, we conclude that METRO does not have an adequate appellate 

remedy for the trial court’s discovery error. See id.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying METRO’s 

motion to compel and that METRO does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. 

Accordingly, we determine that METRO is entitled to the requested relief and order 

the trial court to: (1) vacate its February 7, 2023 order denying METRO’s motion to 

compel plaintiff to execute medical and insurance authorizations and respond to 

interrogatories Nos. 9 and 12; and (2) grant METRO’s motion to compel and permit 
11

the discovery sought in that motion. We are confident the trial court will act in 

accordance with this opinion and will order the clerk of this court to issue a writ of 

mandamus only if the trial court fails to comply.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.