In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836

Background

Garza sued UV Logistics in Jim Wells County after a car-truck collision; she claimed over $320,000 in past medical expenses largely stemming from a two-level cervical fusion performed by Dr. Michael Leonard at Foundation Surgical Hospital (FSH).
Logistics subpoenaed Dr. Leonard and nonparty custodians (ANI and FSH custodians) for medical and billing records and deposition testimony to probe necessity, reasonableness, and possible financial ties to Garza’s lawyers.
Dr. Leonard did not produce subpoenaed records at his deposition; custodians in Bexar County (McClain and Palacio) were later subpoenaed but sought and obtained protective orders from a Bexar County court.
The Jim Wells County court had earlier denied Garza’s motion to quash; after the Bexar orders, the Jim Wells court granted Logistics’ motion and sanctioned Garza by excluding: Dr. Leonard as an expert, testimony of ANI/FSH employees/agents, ANI/FSH medical and billing records, and related charges.
Garza sought mandamus relief arguing (1) the sanctions punished lawful actions of nonparties and lacked a nexus to her conduct, and (2) the exclusions effectively destroy her ability to present key proof so appeal is inadequate.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded the sanctions were arbitrary as applied to Garza (no evidence she was the offender) and that excluding treating physicians/records would severely compromise her case; it conditionally granted mandamus relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garza could be sanctioned for nonparties’ lawful pursuit of protective orders	Garza: sanctions punish her for lawful actions of nonparties and lack evidence she caused noncompliance	Logistics: Garza sought Jim Wells court relief first and enabled noncompliance; sanctions target her conduct in resisting discovery	Court: Sanctioning Garza absent evidence she was an offender was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion
Whether nonparty custodians could seek protection in Bexar County	Garza: custodians have independent, rule-based rights to seek protection where subpoenas were served	Logistics: Jim Wells court retained authority; custodians waived objections by not seeking protection earlier	Court: Rules allow both the deponent and any person affected to seek protective orders; custodians did not waive rights
Whether excluding treating surgeon and records materially vitiates Garza’s case (adequacy of appeal)	Garza: exclusion of Dr. Leonard, ANI, and FSH records/testimony severely compromises ability to prove causation and large medical damages; appeal inadequate	Logistics: This is not a medical-malpractice case; Dr. Leonard is only one of many providers so exclusion is at most inconvenient	Court: Excluding treating surgeon and hospital records/agents would significantly compromise Garza’s case and render appeal inadequate for those sanctions
Whether mandamus relief is warranted for interlocutory discovery sanctions	Garza: mandamus is appropriate because sanctions are arbitrary and appeal is inadequate	Logistics: sanctions are within trial court discretion and do not preclude trial on the merits	Court: Mandamus granted conditionally because both abuse of discretion and inadequacy of appeal (for key exclusions) were shown

Key Cases Cited

TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanction must relate directly to offensive conduct and be visited on offender)
Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991) (mandamus available for sanctions that thwart trial on the merits)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard: appeal inadequate when ability to present claim is vitiated or severely compromised)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus is extraordinary; requires abuse of discretion and inadequate appellate remedy)
In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion occurs when court acts arbitrarily or without guiding principles)
Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989) (same—abuse of discretion standard)
In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2008) (statutory/rule text construed conjunctively regarding who may seek protective orders)
Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Cooper, 873 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1994) (exclusion of experts can function as a death-penalty sanction in some cases)