Motion to Quash in KRISTINE DRUMMOND vs. JULIO CASTILLO| Trellis.Law

On September 03, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Drummond, Kristine, and Castillo, Julio, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
6/1 1/2020 3:14 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Loaidi Grove DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-19-13684

KRISTINE DRUMMOND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Vs. § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
JULIO CASTILLO §
44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’ S DEPOSITIONS
PLAINTIFF’S
BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Plaintiff ﬁles this, her Motion t0 Quash Defendant’s Depositions by Written Questions and

Motion for Protective Order. Defendant’s subpoenas seek medical, billing and radiology records

from the following medical providers and employment records:

Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center, medical records;
Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center, billing records;
Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center, radiology ﬁlms;
Longview ER Operations, LLC d/b/a Hospitality Health ER Longview, medical records;
Longview ER Operations, LLC d/b/a Hospitality Health ER Longview, billing records;
Longview ER Operations, LLC d/b/a Hospitality Health ER Longview, radiology ﬁlms;
Republic EMS, LTD, EMS reports;
Republic EMS, LTD, billing records;
Associated Clinicians of East Texas d/b/a Diagnostic Clinic of Longview, medical records;
Associated Clinicians of East Texas d/b/a Diagnostic Clinic of Longview, billing records;
Associated Clinicians 0f East Texas d/b/a Diagnostic Clinic of Longview, radiology
records;
Arbor Diagnostics, medical records;
Arbor Diagnostics, billing records;
Arbor Diagnostics, radiology records;
Golden Triangle Neurocare, medical records;
Golden Triangle Neurocare, billing records;
Golden Triangle Neurocare, radiology records;
Jasper Police Department, employment records; and
Christus EMS f/d/a Champion EMS, investigative reports.

Plaintiff requests that the Court sign a protective order t0 prevent disclosure 0f the

privileged, private, conﬁdential, and irrelevant matters contained in the records, if any, maintained

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 1 |
Page
by the aforementioned medical service providers and in support thereof shows:

FACTS

This lawsuit results from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on May 4, 2018. At the

time of the collision Plaintiff, Kristine Drummond, was employed as an emergency service

technician, or EMT, by Champion EMS, now Christus EMS, in connection with the Christus Good

Shepherd Medical Hospital located in Longview, Gregg County, Texas. Ms. Drummond was one

of two EMTs that had transported a patient from Longview, Texas to Children’s Hospital in Dallas

earlier that day. Ms. Drummond was a passenger in the ambulance on the return trip to Longview

when the collision took place.

Defendant, Julio Castillo, was operating a tractor trailer in the eastbound lane of State

Highway Spur 557. Mr. Castillo was either travelling too fast for the road conditions and lost

control of the tractor trailer or made an unsafe lane change, struck the ambulance in which Ms.

Drummond was riding, and forced it off of the roadway, across the median and the westbound

lanes of traffic.

As a passenger in this ambulance, it is indisputable that Ms. Drummond had no part to play

in the occurrence of this collision. Ms. Drummond filed this suit to obtain just compensation for

the injuries this collision caused. The filing of this suit, however, does not give Defendant the

license to invade every aspect of Ms. Drummond’s personal life. On May 29, 2020, Defendant

issued subpoenas and served Notices of eighteen Depositions on Written Questions to a host of

healthcare service providers, her present employer, and a past employer. The accompanying

subpoena duces tecums for documents are remarkably expansive and untethered to the scope of

discovery and, as such, Defendant’s requests overly broad in time and scope, and seek privileged,

private, confidential, and irrelevant documents pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 2 | Page
the collateral source rule. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192; Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex.

2012).

Although Defendant’s subpoenas must be narrowly tailored to obtain only those records

which are not privileged and which are either themselves admissible or are reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it is evident from the face of Defendant’s

subpoenas that Defendant did not even attempt to limit the requests. For each of the healthcare

providers at issue, which include Christus Good Shepherd Occupational Medicine Clinic –

Longview, Longview ER Operations, LLC D/B/A/ Hospital Health ER Longview, LTD,

Associated Clinicians of East Texas d/b/a Diagnostic Clinic of Longview, Arbor Diagnostics, and

Golden Triangle Neurocare, Defendant has requested:

Any and all medical records (excluding billing records) from first date of
treatment to present, including but not limited to records regarding the
patient’s conditions and treatments, doctor’s notes, evaluations, office notes,
progress notes, correspondence with other physicians, therapists, hospitals
and/or healthcare providers, physical therapy records, lab reports, radiology
reports, all other diagnostic reports, prescriptions, referrals to other health
care providers, hospital records, therapists’ records, patient information
forms, patient insurance forms, intake forms, litigation files, handwritten
notes, letters of protection, telephone messages, nurses’ notes, every such
records, including but not limited to, those existing in electronic or magnetic
form, including correspondence in the possession, custody or control of the
said witness and every such records to which the witness may have access
pertaining to Kristine Drummond.

Any and all radiology films, X-rays, films, scans, MRIs and reports pertaining
to Kristine Drummond, DOB: 01/29/1972, from the first date of treatment to
present. If available, please forward the digitally acquired imaging studies on
CD, with the viewing program included. We would prefer the raw imaging
data via DICOM format if available. If digitally acquired imaging studies on
CD are not available, then we would like to acquire the actual films.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 3 | Page
records, table of billing codes, letters of protection contracts, liens, assignment
of rights, agreements to pay or other legal instruments potentially giving you
or anyone your practice group a financial interest in the outcome of this
litigation, documents dealing with how the patient was referred to your office
or practice group, including any referral emails or web forms, all internal
emails, chat room logs, text messages or other communications in any way
related to the patient, the lawsuit, or bills, any type of correspondence memos,
bills, reports, claim forms, applications for medical benefits, office notes and
other memoranda, every such record, including but not limited to, those
existing in electronic or magnetic form and every such record in the possession,
custody, and control of said witness, and every such record to which the
witness may have access pertaining to Kristine Drummond. Please ensure all
medical billings records provided have a tax id# for the provider along with
CP and ICD code along with the DRG code and NDC code which should be
listed on the HCFA.

See Exhibit “A” (bold face type original to subpoena) (emphasis added).

In addition, Defendant has sought from Republic EMS, LTD (which appears to be an entity

out of Magnolia, Texas and whose connection to this case is unknown):

Any & All Medical Treatment/Transport Records from first date of treatment
to Present including, but not limited to, call records, call recordings, fact
sheets, patient information sheet, dash cam videos and your complete file.

And:

Any and all billing records, from 05/04/2018 to present, including but not limited
to, patient account information, payment arrangement information, any bills,
transaction history, invoices, receipts, itemized statements, financial record
screen shots/print screens, CPT Codes, NDC numbers, UB forms, records
reflecting payments made, adjustments, write-offs, charges, insurance
records, table of billing codes, letters of protection contracts, liens, assignment
of rights, agreements to pay or other legal instruments potentially giving you
or anyone your practice group a financial interest in the outcome of this
litigation, documents dealing with how the patient was referred to your office
or practice group, including any referral emails or web forms, all internal
emails, chat room logs, text messages or other communications in any way
related to the patient, the lawsuit, or bills, any type of correspondence memos,
bills, reports, claim forms, applications for medical benefits, office notes and
other memoranda, every such record, including but not limited to, those
existing in electronic or magnetic form and every such record in the possession,
custody, and control of said witness, and every such record to which the
witness may have access pertaining to Kristine Drummond. Please ensure all
medical billings records provided have a tax id# for the provider along with

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 4 | Page
CP and ICD code along with the DRG code and NDC code which should be
listed on the HCFA.

See id.

Additionally, earlier in her life and prior to becoming a paramedic, Kristine Drummond

had been employed by the Jasper Police Department. Despite the fact that Plaintiff’s employment

with the Jasper Police Department is remote in time and has absolutely nothing to do with this

motor vehicle collision, Defendant sought from Jasper Police Department Ms. Drummond’s:

Entire Employment file including but not limited to:
 Payroll records;
 Time Sheets, Rates of pay and other forms of compensation;
 Resume;
 Education and training records;
 Disciplinary notices or documents;
 Personnel file including:
o Employment Application;
o Performance Evaluations;
o Attendant & Absentee records;
o Requests for Time Off;
o Documentation of Certification and/or License (if applicable);
o Documentation of workplace injuries;
 Disability and/or Workers’ Compensation Claims including:
o Claims forms;
o Correspondence;
o Medical Records;
o Statements whether written or oral;
o Drug and/or alcohol tets;
o Crash reports involving Ms. Drummond; and
o Any document not specifically described above.

See Exhibit “A” (bold face type original to subpoena) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to these subpoenas and Depositions by Written Questions

and request that the Court issue a protective order preventing disclosure of the records.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Neither the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Texas Rules of Evidence Permit
Unfettered Discovery.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 5 | Page
The Court’s inquiry regarding whether the discovery of information is permissible must

begin with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3(a), which generally permits discovery regarding

any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to a claim or defense in the pending action. Rule

192.3(a) prevents the responding party from objecting that the requested information will be

inadmissible at trial, as long as the requested information appears reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery inadmissible evidence. The Texas Supreme Court has long interpreted this rule and

its predecessors to prevent parties from using discovery requests to engage in “fishing

expeditions.” K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); Dillard Dep’t Stores,

Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) (requesting party cannot use discovery requests to

explore potential claims); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Accordingly, the

Texas Supreme Court requires that the requesting party reasonably tailor his request by time, place,

and subject matter to include only those matters that are relevant to the claims and/or defenses

asserted in the lawsuit. Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995). “[A]

responding party does not have the burden to tailor a reasonable discovery request for the

requesting party. [Citation omitted.] The requesting party has the responsibility to narrowly

tailor its requests to produce.” In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 146 S.W.3d 328, 333 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (emphasis added), citing In re Am. Optical Corp., 968 S.W.2d 711, 712-

713 (Tex. 1998). If the requesting party refuses to limit its discovery requests, the trial court must

make an effort to impose reasonable limits on discovery. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152

(Tex. 2003); In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 190 (Tex. 1999); In re Am. Optical

Corp., 968 S.W.2d at 712-713. The trial court abuses its discretion by ordering discovery broader

than that permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152,

citing Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d at 815.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 6 | Page
Perhaps nowhere is the Court’s gatekeeper role in placing reasonable limitations on the

scope 0f discovery more important than When the discovery 0f protected health information is at

issue. Generally, a patient’s medical records are privileged from discovery. Tex. R. EVid. 509.

Defendant is entitled to discover Plaintiff” s protected health information only t0 the extent that the

patient-litigant exception to the physician—patient privilege applies. Tex. R. EVid. 509(c)(1) and

(c)(4). This exception applies and the Defendant may discover Plaintiffs protected health

information only when ( 1) the requested records are relevant t0 the condition at issue and (2) the

condition is relied upon as a part of a party’s claim 0r defense, meaning that the condition itself is

a fact that carries some legal signiﬁcance. R.K. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d 836, 843 (Tex. 1994).

Both parts 0fthis test must be satisﬁed before the Court may order disclosure. Id. Essentially, then,

the contours of the patient—litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege are coextensive with

the scope of discovery permitted by Texas Rule 0f Civil Procedure 192.3. Stated differently, if

otherwise privileged health information is so closely tied t0 the claims and/or defenses at issue that

it would be discoverable pursuant t0 Rule 192.3(a), the patient—litigant exception permits its

disclosure. Even so, the highly personal nature 0f a patient’s protected health information places

0n the trial court an even heavier responsibility than the case law interpreting Texas Rule 0f Civil

Procedure 192.3(a) and its predecessors t0 prevent any disclosure that is broader than necessary.

Thus, Defendant’s subpoenas must be narrowly tailored to obtain from the providers only

those records that are either themselves admissible or that are reasonably calculated to lead t0 the

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant’s subpoenas far exceed the scope 0f discovery and

seeks numerous documents that are wholly irrelevant and privileged.

B. Defendant’s Subpoenas Are Overly Broad and Exceed the Scope 0f Discovery.

Medical Records

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 7 |
Page
Defendant’s subpoenas seek any and all 0f Plaintiff’s medical records from the

aforementioned providers dating back over 48 years t0 Plaintiffs date 0f birth. See Exhibit “A.”

Requests phrased in such a manner simply cannot be in compliance with a requesting party’s

burden to reasonably tailor its requests by time, place, and subject matter t0 include only those

matters that are relevant to the claims and/or defenses asserted in this lawsuit. Texaco, Ina, 898

S.W.2d 815; In re Sears, Roebuck & C0., 146 S.W.3d 333; In re Am. Optical Corp, 968 S.W.2d

712-13. Defendant’s requests unquestionably seek documents that could contain information

wholly irrelevant to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the subj ect collision, including

information that is privileged, conﬁdential, and/or private. This is impermissible, exceeds the

scope 0f discovery, and invades Plaintiffs T.R.E. 509 privilege.

Furthermore, the requests fail to provide reasonable notice to Plaintiff as t0 the particular

items being requested because it is essentially a request for evegything in the deponent’s ﬁle—

Whatever it is. Such a request from a nonparty is fundamentally unfair. It is similar to asking a

trial witness for a narrative answer—it does not give the opposing party a reasonable opportunity

t0 object because n0 one determine what response may be provided. For example, Diagnostic

Clinic of Longview is healthcare provider used by a large number of local Gregg County residents

for a host of issues because ofthe expansive number ofpractice specialty groups it provides, which

include: (1) allergy, asthma, immunology; (2) diagnostic imaging; (3) ear, nose and throat; (4)

endocrinology; (5) family medicine; (6) gastroenterology; (7) internal medicine; (8) neurology;

(9) orthopedics and sports medicine; (10) physical therapy; (1 1) podiatry; (12) preventive care;

(13) pulmonology; and (14) obstetrics and gynecology. Defendant’s request would force

Diagnostic Clinic t0 produce every private healthcare record it has generated for any care provided,

including any OB/GYN records.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 8 |
Page
All of Defendant’s notices are similarly over-broad, and request documents that are neither

relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and violates

Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy as well as privileges provided under T.R.E. 509 and 510.

Plaintiff further objects based on the Texas Supreme Court’s holdings in R.K. v. Ramirez, 887

S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1994), Groves v. Gabriel, 874 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1994) and Mutter v. Wood, 744

S.W.2d 600 (Tex. 1988) which provide that for medical records to be discoverable they must be

relevant to the underlying suit—if not relevant the privileges afforded under the Texas Rules of

Civil Evidence are preserved.

Any argument that because Plaintiff filed a lawsuit her entire physical health is put at issue

is without merit. Texas Rule of Evidence 509 prevents the disclosure of patient records. Tex. R.

Evid. 509(c). There are specific exceptions to this privilege during a civil lawsuit, and those

exceptions are specifically provided by Rule 509. Tex. R. Evid. 509(e)(1)-(7). Because Plaintiff

has not given consent in this case, the only potential exception to the privilege would be if Plaintiff

relied on a condition as part of her claim or defense and the record itself is relevant to that

condition. Considering the legislature created specific exceptions and did not create an overarching

exception that says the 509 privilege does not apply in personal injury cases, this exception requires

that the records be limited to the specific condition at issue. Stated differently, if a plaintiff brings

a lawsuit and is claiming an injury and pain to her head, then records related to her head are

discoverable (even if the record does not relate the facts of the case). But records related to her

ankles or gynecological appointments are not a condition at issue and therefore do not fall within

the exception. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoenas should be quashed and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Protective Order granted.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 9 | Page
Radiology Records

Defendant has failed t0 reasonably tailor its subpoenas related to diagnostic imaging.

Similar t0 the above, these subpoenas invade Plaintiff s 509 privilege and seek documents

unrelated t0 the claim without any attempt t0 limit the information sought.

Here, Defendant seeks every diagnostic image of any sort related t0 Plaintiff that has

occurred since Plaintiff s birth. In other words, if Plaintiff received any diagnostic imaging at any

time in her life such record must be produced. However, T.R.E. 509 applies and Defendant has

failed to meet the exception. Defendant makes n0 attempt to limit the information sought t0 a

condition at issue. Once again, the subpoenas would require disclosure 0f information and

documents that are not related to a condition at issue and thereby privileged.

Lastly, the requests fail t0 provide reasonable notice to Plaintiff as t0 the particular items

being requested because it is essentially a request for evegything in the deponent’s ﬁle—Whatever

it is. Such a request from a nonparty is fundamentally unfair. It is similar to asking a trial Witness

for a narrative answer—it does not give the opposing party a reasonable opportunity t0 object

because n0 one knows What’s coming. Said notice is over—broad, and requests documents that are

neither relevant nor reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and

violates Plaintiff s constitutional right to privacy as well as privileges provided under T.R.E. 509

and 510. Plaintiff further obj ects based on the Texas Supreme Court’s holdings in R.K. v. Ramirez,

887 S.W.2d 836 (TeX. 1994), Groves v. Gabriel, 874 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1994) and Mutter v. Wood,

744 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. 1988) Which provide that for medical records to be discoverable they must

be relevant to the underlying suit—if not relevant the privileges afforded under the Texas Rules 0f

Civil Evidence are preserved.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 10 |
Page
Billing Records

Defendant’s subpoenas with respect to billing records are not reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates the collateral source rule. As described in

greater detail below, no fact at issue in this case becomes more or less likely based on whether

Plaintiff, insurance, or a good Samaritan paid her medical bills. In other words, this information is

not relevant.

Admittedly, relevance is not the standard for discovery, but the information must at the

very least be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Here, there is

no reasonable argument that Plaintiff’s insurance and the knowledge of who paid the medical bills

will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As such, Plaintiff’s motion should be granted.

This overbreadth and invasion of privileged information occurs with respect to Defendant’s

written questions as well. The only relevant basis, that would not constitute an over-broad fishing

expedition, for the discovery Defendant is seeking in regards to bills, health insurance, and

employee benefits would be to determine the paid versus incurred amount. However, there are

means of obtaining this information that would not violate the collateral source rule. If Defendant’s

true intention were merely to know the amount paid versus incurred with respect to medical bills,

a subpoena that seeks to know that amount, regardless of who pays it, would provide that

information. Anything in addition to such discovery exceeds the scope of discovery, is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and should not be permitted.

Lastly, any attempt to discover who Plaintiff’s health insurance carrier is (if any) or what

Plaintiff has paid versus what others have paid is wholly unrelated to any fact at issue in the case

and violates the collateral source rule. The information sought in the subpoenas must still fall

within the scope of discovery. If Plaintiff paid half of her medical bills and her insurance paid half,

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 11 | Page
the paid versus incurred amount remains unchanged and health insurance has no relevance to the

case. This is a harassing fishing expedition and improper attempt to circumvent the collateral

source rule. Regardless of who paid Plaintiff’s bills, if anyone, the paid versus incurred amount is

the same and Defendant’s subpoenas are outside the scope of discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion should be granted.

Employment/Personnel Records

Defendant’s attempt to gather every record generated which relates to Kristine Drummond

during her employment with the Jasper Police Department is an egregious abuse of discovery.

Plaintiff is not a police officer. For more than approximately seven (7) years, she has been

employed by Champion EMS, which is now Christus EMS, as an emergency services technician.

Defendant has already served depositions on written questions and subpoenas upon Christus EMS

to obtain Ms. Drummond’s personnel file and associated documents.

Moreover, Ms. Drummond was a passenger returning home from delivering a patient when

Mr. Castillo side-swiped her ambulance, forcing her off the roadway. Ms. Drummond was not,

and is not alleged to be, negligent in any way with respect to the wreck that Mr. Castillo caused.

There is no connection between Ms. Drummond’s payroll records at the Jasper Police Department,

or her time sheets, or rates of pay and other forms of compensation and this case. There is no

connection between Mr. Drummond’s resume, or education and training records, or disciplinary

notices or documents and this case. There is no connection between her Jasper Police Department

personnel file, including performance evaluations, attendant & absentee records, requests for time

off, or documentation of her law enforcement certification and TCOLE continuing education

requirements for a career she no longer has or a job she hasn’t been employed at for almost a

decade. Nor can Defendant justify a carte blanche inquisition into disability or workers’

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 12 | Page
compensation claims arising from Ms. Drummond’s employment as a police officer, to include

claims forms, statements, and drug and alcohol tests.

Nor it is just the breadth of these requests into unrelated aspects of Ms. Drummond’s life.

As above, Defendant’s requests for worker’s compensation and disability records, medical

benefits, medical records, tax records, employee benefits, other insurance and prior injury related

documents, and correspondence and/or notes violates the privileges imposed by Tex. R. Evid. 509

and 510.

C. This Motion is not Intended to Permanently Limit Defendants’ Ability to Obtain
Earlier Records.

In the event that the records obtained by Defendant refer to some medical condition or

other incident that would be relevant to the claims and defenses herein, Defendant should be free

to re-urge its request for a broader scope of discovery, once adequately supported by facts. Plaintiff

does not, by this motion, intend to permanently limit the scope of discovery to a fixed period of

time. Instead, once Defendant has records supporting a broader scope of discovery (if any such

records exist) the Court should permit it to re-urge its broader record subpoenas.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that the Court sustain her objections and

grant her Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order and:

a. set an emergency hearing;

b. enter an Order that the medical, billing, radiology, personnel and payroll,
investigative records be protected and not disclosed; and

c. any further relief to which Plaintiff may show herself justly entitled.

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 13 | Page
Respectfully submitted,

SLOAN, HATCHER, PERRY, RUNGE,
ROBERTSON, SMITH & JONES

/s/ Justin A. Smith
JUSTIN A. SMITH
StateBar N0. 24068415
jsmith@sloanﬁrm.com
GLENN A. PERRY
State Bar N0. 15801500
gap@sloanﬁrm.com
101 East Whaley Street
P.O. Drawer 2909
Longview, Texas 75606-2909
Telephone: (903) 757-7000
Facsimile: (903) 757-7574

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ihereby certify that a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing document has been forwarded
Via eﬁle in accordance With the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure 0n this 11th day 0f June 2020, to
the following attorney 0f record:

Thomas G. Jacks
Jessica Junek
Hartline Barger LLP
8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas,TX 75231
tjacks@hartlinebarger.com
jjunek@hartlinebarger.com

/s/ Justin A. Smith
JUSTIN A. SMITH

Motion to Quash Depositions on Written Questions 14 |
Page
CAUSE NO. DC-19-13684
KRISTINE DRUMMOND, : IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, :

vs. : DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

JULIO CASTILLO, :

Defendant. : 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF INTENTION
TO TAKE DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS

You will please take notice that twenty (20) days from the service of a copy hereof with attached questions, a deposition by written
questions will be taken 0f Custodian of Records for:

Christus Good Sheperd Occupational Medicine - Longview - Record Type: Medical
Christus Good Sheperd Occupational Medicine - Longview - Record Type: Billing (Speciﬁc Date Range)
Christus Good Sheperd Occupational Medicine - Longview - Record Type: Radiology Films
Longview ER Operations, LLC D/B/A Hospitality Health ER Longview - Record Type: Medical
Longview ER Operations, LLC D/B/A Hospitality Health ER Longview - Record Type: Billing (Speciﬁc Date Range)
Longview ER Operations, LLC D/B/A Hospitality Health ER Longview - Record Type: Radiology Films
Republic EMS, LTD - Record Type: EMS Reports Only
Republic EMS, LTD - Record Type: Billing (Speciﬁc Date Range)
Associated Clinicians 0f East Texas dm/a Diagnositc Clinc of Longview - Record Type: Medical
Associated Clinicians 0f East Texas d/b/a Diagnositc Clinc 0f Longview - Record Type: Billing (Speciﬁc Date Range)
Associated Clinicians 0f East Texas dm/a Diagnositc Clinc 0f Longview - Record Type: Radiology Films
Arbor Diagnositcs Record Type: Medical
-

Arbor Diagnositcs - Record Type: Billing
Golden Triangle Neurocare - Record Type: Medical
Golden Triangle Neurocare - Record Type: Billing (Speciﬁc Date Range)
Golden Triangle Neurocare - Record Type: Radiology Films
Jasper Police Department - Record Type: Employment
Christus EMS f/ka Champion EMS - Record Type: Investigative Reports

before a Notary Public for Magna Legal Services
1635 Market St., 9th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
866-624-6221
or its designated agent, which deposition with attached questions may be used in evidence upon the trial of the above-styled and

numbered cause pending in the above named court. Notice is further given that request is hereby made as authorized under Rule
200, Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure, to the ofﬁcer taking this deposition t0 issue a subpoena duces tecum and cause it t0 be
served on the Witness to produce any and all records as described 0n the attached questions and/or Exhibit(s) and any other such

record in the possession, custody or control of the said Witness, and every such record to which the Witness may have access,

pertaining t0:

Kristine Drummond
and t0 turn all such records over t0 the ofﬁcer authorized t0 take this deposition so that photographic reproductions of the same
may be made and attached t0 said deposition.

/s/ Thomas G. Jacks, Esq.

Thomas G. Jacks, Esq.
Hartline Barger LLP
8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75231
214-369-2100
214-369-2118
Attorney for Defendant
SBA # 24067681
Exhibit A
I

Dated: May 29,2020 WW
hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been, forwarded
delivery, fax, email, and/or certiﬁed mail, return receipt requested, 0n

Stephal'lie
Magna Legal
this day.

Hartline Barger
Uhl
Services o/b/o
LLP
to all Counsel of Record by hand

Exhibit A
Cause # DC-1 9-1 3684
7842.034
KRISTINE DRUMMOND, : IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
°
Plaintiff,

vs. : DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

JULIO CASTILLO, :

Defendant. : 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TEXAS DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY OR PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
T0 any Sheriff or Constable of the State 0f Texas or other person authorized t0 serve subpoenas under RULE 176 OF TEXAS
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

You are hereby commanded to subpoena and summon the following witness(es):
Custodian of records for: Christus Good Sheperd Occupational Medicine - Longview
Records Custodian
409 N Sixth St
Longview, Texas 75601
t0 be and appear before a Notary Public on the forthwith day 0f Instanter at the ofﬁce 0f the custodian and there under oath t0
make answers 0f certain written questions to be propounded to the witness and t0 bring and produce for inspection and
photocopying:

ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS (EXCLUDING BILLING RECORDS), FROM FIRST DATE OF TREATMENT TO
PRESENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RECORDS REGARDING THE PATIENT'S CONDITIONS AND
TREATMENTS, DOCTOR'S NOTES, EVALUATIONS, OFFICE NOTES, PROGRESS NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE WITH
OTHER PHYSICIANS, THERAPISTS, HOSPITALS AND/OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, PHYSICAL THERAPY
RECORDS, LAB REPORTS, RADIOLOGY REPORTS, ALL OTHER DIAGNOSTIC REPORTS, PRESCRIPTIONS,
REFERRALS TO OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, HOSPITAL RECORDS, THERAPISTS' RECORDS, PATIENT
INFORMATION FORMS, PATIENT INSURANCE FORMS, INTAKE FORMS, LITIGATION FILES, HANDWRITTEN
NOTES, LETTERS OF PROTECTION, TELEPHONE MESSAGES, NURSES' NOTES, EVERY SUCH RECORD, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE EXISTING IN ELECTRONIC OR MAGNETIC FORM, INCLUDING CORRESPONDENCE
IN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE SAID WITNESS AND EVERY SUCH RECORDS TO WHICH THE
WITNESS MAY HAVE ACCESS PERTAINING TO Kristine Drummond.

and any other such record in the possession, custody 0r control of the said witness, and every such record to which the witness
may have access, pertaining to: Kristine Drummond
DOB: 01/29/1972
SSN: XXX-XX-881 1
at any and all time whatsoever, then, and there t0 give evidence at the instance 0f the defendant Julio Castillo represented by
Thomas G. Jacks, Esq., attorney of record.

Note that records and all corresponding afﬁdavits and depositions, if applicable, must be sent t0:

Magna Legal Services
Records Division,
1635 Market Street, 9th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

This Subpoena is issued under and by Virtue 0f Rule 200 and Notice 0f Deposition Upon Written Questions 0n ﬁle with
the above named court,

176.8 Enforcement of Subpoena. (a) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse t0 obey a subpoena
may be deemed a contempt 0f the court from which the subpoena is issued 0r a district court in
served upon that person
the county in Which the subpoena is served, and may be punished by ﬁne 0r conﬁnement, or both.

Dated this 29th Day 0f May 2020 /S/ Thomas G Jacks. Esq.
Thomas G. Jacks, Esq., SBN 24067681
Hartline Barger LLP
8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75231

Exhibit Aral: 214—369—2100
N0. DC-l9-13684

KRISTINE DRUMMOND, : IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, :

vs. : DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

JULIO CASTILLO, :

Defendant. : 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DIRECT QUESTIONS TO BE PROPOUNDED TO WITNESS:

Custodian 0f Records for: Christus Good Sheperd Occupational Medicine
- Longview

Pertaining to: Kristine Drummond

ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS (EXCLUDING BILLING RECORDS), FROM
Type of Records:
FIRST DATE OF TREATMENT TO PRESENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RECORDS
REGARDING THE PATIENT'S CONDITIONS AND TREATMENTS, DOCTOR'S NOTES,
EVALUATIONS, OFFICE NOTES, PROGRESS NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE WITH OTHER
PHYSICIANS, THERAPISTS, HOSPITALS AND/OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, PHYSICAL
THERAPY RECORDS, LAB REPORTS, RADIOLOGY REPORTS, ALL OTHER DIAGNOSTIC
REPORTS, PRESCRIPTIONS, REFERRALS TO OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, HOSPITAL
RECORDS, THERAPISTS' RECORDS, PATIENT INFORMATION FORMS, PATIENT INSURANCE
FORMS, INTAKE FORMS, LITIGATION FILES, HANDWRITTEN NOTES, LETTERS OF
PROTECTION, TELEPHONE MESSAGES, NURSES' NOTES, EVERY SUCH RECORD, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE EXISTING IN ELECTRONIC OR MAGNETIC FORM, INCLUDING
CORRESPONDENCE IN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE SAID WITNESS AND
EVERY SUCH RECORDS TO WHICH THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ACCESS PERTAINING TO Kristine
Drummond.

I . Please state your full name.

ANSWER

2. Please state by whom you are employed, business address and phone number

ANSWER

3. What is the title 0f your position 0r job?

ANSWER

4. Are the medical records, outlined in the subpoena duces tecum, pertaining to the above—named person, in your
custody 0r subj ect t0 your control, supervision 0r direction?

AN SWER
5. Are you able t0 identify these medical records as the originals 0r true copies 0f the originals.

ANSWER
6. Please hand t0 the Ofﬁcer/Notary Public taking this deposition copies of the medical 0r radiology records
mentioned in Question No. 4. Have you complied? If not, why?

ANSWER

Exhibit A
7. Are the copies Which you have handed t0 the Ofﬁcer Notary Public taking this deposition true and correct copies
0f all such medical records?

ANSWER

8. Were such medical records kept in the regular course 0f business of this facility?

ANSWER

9. Please state whether 0r not it was the regular course 0f business 0f the above-mentioned facility for a person With
knowledge 0f the acts, events, conditions, opinion, 0r diagnoses, recorded t0 make the record 0r t0 transmit
information thereof to be included in such record

ANSWER

10. Were the medical records made by nurses, doctors and other employees or representatives made at or near the time
when the acts, events, conditions. courses of treatment, diagnoses and other information contained therein occurred,

Case Info

Judge

FRAZIER, VERETTA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 11, 2020

Case Filing Date

September 03, 2019

County

Parties

CASTILLO, JULIO Defendant
DRUMMOND, KRISTINE Plaintiff
JACKS, THOMAS G Attorney for the Defendant
SMITH, JUSTIN A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
TAYLOR, JANA HICKS Attorney for the Defendant
WOMACK, JAMES K. Attorney for the Plaintiff
Jessica Junek Attorneys for Defendants
Colin Powell Attorneys for Defendants
Kristina Cunningham Attorney
Courtney Kenisky Attorneys for Defendants
Glenn Perry Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Juneau Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: KRISTINE DRUMMOND vs. JULIO CASTILLO

Preview

Case Info

Parties