in Re Thomas Teran and Ruiz and Sons, Inc., 04-21-00436-CV

Plaintiff Victor Galvan sued Thomas Teran and Ruiz and Sons for injuries and over $1,000,000 in damages after a vehicle collision; about half of Galvan’s claimed medical bills were for treatment at Foundation Surgical Hospital of San Antonio.
Foundation treated Galvan as a private-pay patient but acknowledged actual payments vary by contractual agreements with insurers and payors.
Relators (Teran and Ruiz) served Foundation, a nonparty, with written-deposition questions and subpoenas seeking Foundation’s contracts with major insurers, its Medicare cost report, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates, and the negotiated reimbursement rates applicable to Galvan’s care.
Foundation objected, moved for a protective order and to quash, citing overbreadth, irrelevance, trade-secret/confidentiality, and undue burden; it offered a business-manager affidavit and asked for a protective order if production was required.
The trial court granted Foundation’s motion without explanation; relators petitioned the Fourth Court of Appeals for mandamus relief.
The appellate court conditionally granted mandamus, concluding the discovery requests track Texas Supreme Court precedent, were relevant and not overbroad, and that confidentiality concerns should be addressed by a protective order rather than a wholesale quash.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relevance / Overbreadth / Undue burden	Requested insurer contracts, cost report, and negotiated rates are relevant to challenge chargemaster reasonableness; requests track North Cypress	Requests are vague, overbroad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome	Discovery is relevant and not overbroad as a matter of law; conclusory affidavit insufficient to show undue burden; quash was an abuse of discretion
Alternative methods (Sec. 18.001; expert affidavits)	Relators need providers’ actual agreed rates to support expert opinions; affidavits alone insufficient	Section 18.001 and expert opinions can replace production; discovery unnecessary	Court rejected reliance on affidavits alone; discovery of provider contracts/rates can be necessary for a fair adjudication
Confidentiality / Trade secrets / Protective orders	Willing to accept protective order to protect confidential information	Information is proprietary/trade secret; relators failed to show necessity; arguing privilege under Rule 507	Even assuming trade-secret status, precedent requires trial court to consider protective orders rather than blanket denial; court abused discretion by not doing so
Adequate remedy by appeal	Lack of discovery from nonparty is not correctable on appeal and critically affects ability to challenge charges	Not directly argued as defense on appealability	Relators lack adequate appellate remedy; mandamus appropriate

In re North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co., Ltd., 559 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2018) (approved disclosure of insurer contracts, Medicare cost report, and reimbursement rates to test chargemaster reasonableness)
In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2021) (extended North Cypress to tort cases and held similar discovery requests not overbroad)
In re ExxonMobil Corp., 635 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2021) (reiterated that protective orders can address confidentiality and that blanket denials based on trade-secret claims are improper)
In re Continental Gen. Tire, 979 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1998) (discussed burden-shifting when a party claims trade-secret protection)