in Re E.C., F.C., T.C., and Cleburne Metal Works, LLC D/B/A Cleburne Sheet Metal, 444 S.W.3d 760

Relators seek mandamus to prevent production of Dr. Miller’s file in civil case; trial court ordered partial production and in-camera review.
Dr. Miller, a psychologist hired as defense consultant in E.C.’s juvenile case, treated E.C. and his parents and testified at disposition.
RPIs subpoena Miller’s records March 2014 and sought deposition by written questions; Relators asserted confidentiality under family code and various privileges.
Trial court held 51.13(b) and 58.005(a) inapplicable and privileges waived, and ordered further production for in-camera inspection.
Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, holding Miller’s file not confidential and privileges waived by disclosure in open court and interviews.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confidentiality under sections 51.13(b) and 58.005(a)	Relators contend Miller’s file is confidential under family code	RPIs argue records are discoverable in civil proceeding	Statutes inapplicable; confidentiality not controlling
Proper scope and interpretation of confidential records	Disclosures fall outside the defined records/files	Context shows records/files limited to juvenile system	Statutory construction supports inapplicability
Waiver of privileges by Dr. Miller’s open disclosures	Privileges cannot be waived by disclosures that are privileged	Open court testimony discloses substantial privileged information	Privileges waived; trial court did not err in upholding waiver

In re Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 204 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (relevance not equal to admissibility; discovery can occur)
In re General Agents Ins. Co. of Am., Inc., 224 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (waiver by disclosure in open court supported)
State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. 2006) (statutory construction and context rules)
Engelking v. Von Wamel, 26 Tex. 469 (Tex. 1863) (statutory interpretation principles)