The 15th Court of Appeals has conditionally granted mandamus petitions filed by 22 nonparty patients whose medical records have been subpoenaed by the state in an SB 14 lawsuit against two physicians.
In re Nonparty Patient No. 1, et al. (No. 15-25-00031(2)-CV; October 16, 2025) arose from the state’s 2024 lawsuits in Collin County against two physicians whom the state alleged provided gender-transition treatment to minors in violation of SB 14 and the DTPA. The state served subpoenas on two Dallas-area hospitals requesting documents “relating to the care and treatment” of 42 patients of each doctor, including their medical records, billing records, psychiatry notes, and correspondence. Shortly thereafter, 22 of the patients filed petitions for protection from discovery subpoenas in Dallas County, where their subpoenas were served. Concurrently, the Collin County district court stated that it would soon order the hospitals to being producing documents under the subpoenas. The nonparty patients moved to stay production until the Dallas County district court decided their motions for protection. The Collin County court entered an order requiring the hospitals to produce the records to nonparty patients’ counsel for privilege review and redactions and then for in a camera review. The state filed a plea to the jurisdiction in the Dallas court, asserting sovereign immunity. It also filed a plea in abatement arguing that the Collin County court has dominant jurisdiction. The Dallas court denied both.
In an opinion by Justice Field handed down in August, the court affirmed the Dallas court’s denial of the state’s pleas and remanded to allow both parties to amend their pleadings to cure a jurisdictional defect. This second opinion, penned by Chief Justice Brister, takes up the nonparty patients’ mandamus petitions seeking to block the Collin County district court’s order. The state responded that the order was proper and that Relators lacked standing to challenge production of the medical records of unrepresented patients. The court replied the same way it did in the August opinion. “Because the State did not argue standing in the trial court,” it reasoned, “relators had no reason to amend their pleadings or present evidence that the production of documents related to the unrepresented patients would injure them.” Since the existing pleadings and records in this case did not conclusively negate standing, relators should get the chance to amend their pleadings as well. The court thus concluded that the Collin County court abused its discretion by ordering the hospitals to produce when the motions for protection were still pending in Dallas.
