Case Information
*0 FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 15-25-00031-CV 800 Capitol St., Suite 2400
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS Houston, TX 77002-2925 AUSTIN, TEXAS +1 713-651-2600 +1 713-651-2700 6/12/2025 2:46 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK WILLIAM LOGAN Associate Attorney +1 713-651-2766 WLogan@winston.com Mr. Christopher A. Prine
Clerk of the Court
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 12852
Austin, TX 78711
Re: Nonparty Patients Nos. 1–11 v. State No. 15-25-00023-CV In re State of Texas No. 15-25-00031-CV In re State of Texas No. 15-25-00032-CV Nonparty Patient Nos. 1–11 v. State No. 15-25-00039-CV Dear Mr. Prine:
The Nonparty Patients submit this letter in response to the State’s June 9, 2025 correspondence. In its submission, the State told the Court that, in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc. , — S.W.3d —, 2025 WL 1536224 (Tex. 2025), it would no longer press its sovereign immunity argument in the above-captioned appeal and mandamus proceedings. The Nonparty Patients will defer to the Court on what the appropriate next steps should be. However, they offer the following three remarks.
First, it is unclear how the high Court’s decision in Annunciation House bears on any sovereign immunity analysis. That opinion does not mention the term sovereign immunity once. Nor does it help answer the principal questions raised in the briefs, e.g., whether sovereign immunity extends to parallel Rule 176.6(e) proceedings or whether an assertion of an evidentiary privilege equates to an affirmative cause of action. See Resp. Br. at 10–31. Perhaps Annunciation House offers worthy insights, but its import is not readily apparent from the Nonparty Patient’s review.
Second, it is odd that the State has now withdrawn its sovereign immunity contention and cited a facially irrelevant case for doing so. The abrupt change is not only confusing, but it raises serious questions about the State’s motives and tactics. To date, counsel for the Nonparty Patients have devoted hundreds of hours to researching, briefing, and arguing the baselessness of the State’s contention in the trial courts and this Court. Significant travel and lodging costs for attorneys based in Houston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have been paid to litigate this issue. And, up until now, the State’s position on sovereign immunity has been nothing short of aggressive: In the trial court, the State went so far as to file an interlocutory appeal in the middle of the hearing— before the *2 ReLine Page 2 Court’s written order could be entered. 1 See C.R. 402–03; R.R 56–57. In meet-and-confers, the State accused the Nonparty Patients of being unreasonable because, it insisted, its sovereign immunity argument was strong. Moreover, the State’s opening brief claimed its position adhered to “black-letter law,” relied on “two simple concepts,” and should have been “an easy case” for the trial court. State’s Br. at 1–2. The sudden about-face does not seem to be in good faith. And frankly, it leaves the Nonparty Patients with a sense that their time and efforts have largely been wasted (not to mention the judiciary’s).
Finally, if the State does withdraw its sovereign immunity arguments, it appears the Court no longer has appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal in Cause No. 15-25-00023-CV. The Court’s appellate jurisdiction over that case derives from Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies the State’s plea to the jurisdiction. The plea to the jurisdiction only raised a sovereign immunity argument. C.R. 345– 46. It said nothing of standing. Thus, the secondary question raised in the interlocutory appeal— whether the Nonparty Patients may assert the rights of unrepresented patients—does not independently confer appellate jurisdiction. 2 So, it appears the Court should dismiss the interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Of course, because the State has raised these same standing arguments in two mandamus proceedings—Cause Nos. 15-25-00031-CV and 15- 25-00032-CV—the Court is free to address those arguments there.
The Nonparty Patients thank the Court for its attention to these matters. They stand ready to provide any further briefing or clarification.
Sincerely,
/s/ William Logan William M. Logan
Evan D. Lewis
Olivia A. Wogon
Winston & Strawn LLP 800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 651 -2600 Jervonne D. Newsome 1 The written order is not a mere formality; it is a legal prerequisite to perfecting an interlocutory appeal. See Archer v. Tunnell , 2016 WL 519632, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 9, 2016, no pet.) (“[A]n interlocutory appeal may be perfected only from a written order, not an oral ruling.”). The Nonparty Patients did not challenge this procedural infirmity because they recognized that a premature notice of appeal could later be perfected. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.1 (a). 2 In so stating, the Nonparty Patients do not abandon their position that they never raised a challenge on behalf of the unrepresented patients. They only opposed the production of documents that commingle the Nonparty Patients’ information with those of unrepresented patients. See Resp. Br. at 31–32.
2
ReLine Page 3 Thanh D. Nguyen
Jonathan Hung
Winston & Strawn LLP 2121 N. Pearl Street, 9th Floor Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 453-6500 Hollie M. Albin
Winston & Strawn LLP 1901 L Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 282-5000 David Phillips
Winston & Strawn LLP 200 Park Avenue, 43rd Floor New York, NY 10166 Tel: (212) 294–6700 cc: Abigail E. Smith, via e-service
Johnathan Stone, via e-service
Rob Farquharson, via e-service
David Shatto, via e-service
3 *4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Lucy Fowler on behalf of William Logan
Bar No. 24106214
LFowler@winston.com
Envelope ID: 101951366
Filing Code Description: Letter
Filing Description: NONPARTY PATIENTS LETTER IN RESPONSE TO
THE STATE'S CORRESPONDENCE
Status as of 6/12/2025 3:25 PM CST
Associated Case Party: NonParty Patient No. 1
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jervonne Newsome JNewsome@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Thanh Nguyen TDNguyen@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Evan Lewis edlewis@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
William Logan WLogan@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Olivia Wogon owogon@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: State of Texas
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
David G. Shatto david.shatto@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Rob Farquharson rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Abby Smith abby.smith@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Johnathan Stone johnathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Ian Bergstrom Ian.Bergstrom@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Amy Pletscher amy.pletscher@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Alexander Wolf 24095027 awolf@steptoe.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Craig Smyser 18777575 csmyser@steptoe.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Nicole LeBoeuf 791091 nicole@leboeuflaw.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Cory Sutker 24037569 cory.sutker@cooperscully.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
*5 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Lucy Fowler on behalf of William Logan
Bar No. 24106214
LFowler@winston.com
Envelope ID: 101951366
Filing Code Description: Letter
Filing Description: NONPARTY PATIENTS LETTER IN RESPONSE TO
THE STATE'S CORRESPONDENCE
Status as of 6/12/2025 3:25 PM CST
Case Contacts
Cory Sutker 24037569 cory.sutker@cooperscully.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Drew Padley 24111325 dpadley@steptoe.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Martin Cohick 24134042 martin.cohick@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Pauline Sisson pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Emily Samuels emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Melinda Pate melinda.pate@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Amy Ooi amy@leboeuflaw.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Jackie Cooper Jackie.Cooper@cooperscully.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Houston Docketing ecf_houston@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Jamie Vargo JVargo@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
David Phillips dphillips@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Hollie Albin hmalbin@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Sarah McGrath smcgrath@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Jonathan Hung johung@winston.com 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Patrick Todd patrick.todd@oag.texas.gov 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT
Amy Patterson apatterson@co.collin.tx.us 6/12/2025 2:46:32 PM SENT