Christopher Blaha and Angel Diaz sued EGT Holdings, LLC d/b/a Stephens Roofing & Remodeling and Thomas Patrick Suitt over a rear-end car wreck. The plaintiffs treated with Dr. Frank K. Kuwamura, III, who practices through MD Spine Care, LLC and who was designated as their treating physician and testifying expert. The defendants (the relators) sought to show that Dr. Kuwamura charges patients treated under attorney letters of protection a higher rate than he charges for the same services under negotiated rates with private insurers and public payors.¹ The real parties answer that MD Spine fully answered the defendants' deposition on written questions about the plaintiffs' treatment, and that at the oral deposition the defendants demanded information about the operations of a different entity owned by Dr. Kuwamura, Frank K. Kuwamura, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Innovative Spine Care & Associates, PLLC, which did not treat the plaintiffs.²

After Dr. Kuwamura refused to answer deposition questions or produce documents about certain billing rates, the relators moved to compel and then subpoenaed the same documents from Innovative Spine. The plaintiffs objected, moved to quash and moved for a protective order. The 225th District Court of Bexar County (Judge Nadine Melissa Nieto) sustained the objection, granted the motions to quash and for protection, and denied the motion to compel.¹ The Fourth Court of Appeals (Valenzuela, McCray and Meza, JJ.) denied mandamus, with Justice Meza dissenting, In re EGT Holdings, LLC, No. 04-25-00022-CV, 2025 WL 1649357 (Tex. App.⁠—San Antonio June 11, 2025) (mem. op.).² The relators filed this petition on July 29, 2025; the real parties responded December 5, 2025 and the relators replied January 14, 2026. The Court requested briefs on the merits; relators filed theirs May 4, 2026, real parties filed July 3, 2026, and relators replied August 19, 2026 (Docket).

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court after the Fourth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, over a dissent, from a Bexar County discovery order in a personal-injury case. The Court has requested and received merits briefing but has not yet granted or denied the petition.

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to compel oral deposition responses on medical-billing inquiries, where Dr. Kuwamura was properly served, waived any service defects by appearing and not timely objecting, and the order conceals relevant evidence on the reasonableness of his rates, contrary to In re K&L Auto Crushers. 2. Whether the court likewise abused its discretion by quashing the deposition on written questions to Innovative Spine. 3. Whether denial of this discovery guts the defense on damages and leaves relators no adequate appellate remedy.¹

Relators (EGT Holdings, LLC and Thomas Patrick Suitt): In re K&L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2021), held that negotiated rates a provider charges private insurers and public payors are relevant and discoverable on the reasonableness of the full rates charged an uninsured patient, and that decision is dispositive; Justice Meza's dissent agreed. They argue the physician was properly served and waived any defect by appearing and not timely objecting, Innovative Spine's objections were untimely and waived, the plaintiffs' attempts to distinguish K&L and the caselaw they cite are unavailing, the discovery remains relevant even though the plaintiffs de-designated Dr. Kuwamura as an expert on the reasonableness of medical costs, the proportionality objection lacks merit, and the discovery would not cause unfair prejudice or confusion or implicate the collateral source rule. They say denial deprives them of an adequate remedy by appeal because it guts their damages defense.¹

Real Parties in Interest (Dr. Kuwamura and the plaintiffs, Christopher Blaha and Angel Diaz): The defendants cannot show entitlement to extraordinary relief because their own retained billing expert has already given the evidence they say they lack and concluded MD Spine's charges for future recommended care are reasonable, and Dr. Kuwamura will not testify that those charges are reasonable. The case is not "K&L Auto Crushers 2.0." The plaintiffs argue the trial court correctly concluded the discovery would infect the case with collateral issues and unfairly prejudice them, since it targets insurance information, would lead to collateral mini-trials over reimbursement, and would never be admissible because recovery of medical expenses is limited to amounts actually paid or incurred under section 41.0105; discoverability does not eliminate the court's duty to consider prejudice and proportionality; and Innovative Spine, which did not treat the plaintiffs, has irrelevant records. Alternatively, if the Court finds some relief appropriate, they ask that the trial court be authorized to protect the interests at stake.²

Because this is an original proceeding, the relators do not present separate reasons for review; they argue the trial court's ruling contravenes this Court's authority in K&L Auto Crushers and leaves them without an adequate appellate remedy on a central damages issue.¹

None