Dr. Randy Chung Worried About His Record-Keeping Habits

Witness Randy Chung, M.D. (“Dr. Chung”) files these Objections to the Subpoena Duces Tecum Attached to Plaintiff’s Witness Subpoena.

Background

Plaintiff seeks recovery in this health care liability claim against HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood. And Plaintiff issued his witness subpoena to Dr. Chung, attached as Exhibit 1.

Because Plaintiff’s request is improper, Dr. Chung files these objections to the subpoena duces tecum.

General Objection

Dr. Chung is a physician as defined by Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Dr. Chung also provided medical care to Plaintiff.1

Plaintiff, moreover, complains “that Dr. Chung had violated his Hippocratic Oath and he had failed miserably to provide any meaningful solutions or care to Plaintiff.”2

Yet Plaintiff has not complied with Chapter 74’s preliminary expert report requirement regarding Dr. Chung.3

Dr. Chung thus objects to any testimonial discovery that could be used in any attempt to establish liability against Dr. Chung or his practice.

As the Dallas Court of Appeals stated:

Relator is a healthcare provider, and parties harmed by relator’s alleged medical negligence seek to depose relator. That discovery concerns a healthcare liability claim, and relator may not be ordered to appear for a deposition before receiving a Chapter 74 expert report.

See (In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 422 (Tex. 2008)). Cf. In re PRG Dall., ASC, L.P., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 4906 *12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, no pet.).

Objections to Request

Dr. Chung objects to the following request within the subpoena duces tecum, which states:

PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF YOUR PATIENT FILE AND NOTES FOR MARK BURKE, OR TANGIBLE THINGS IN POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THAT PERSON, PERTAINING TO MOTION HEARING HELD ON JAN 9, 2022, IN ABOVE STYLED CASE.

Dr. Chung objects to the request on the grounds that it calls for material that is available from an alternate source—HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood, the custodian of these records—that is more convenient and less burdensome.

See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4(a).

Dr. Chung also objects to the request on the grounds that it (“MOTION HEARING HELD ON JAN 9, 2022, IN ABOVE STYLED CASE,” which Dr. Chung did not receive motions or responses about and did not attend) is so vague and misleading that Dr. Chung is unable to determine with reasonable certainty what he is being called on to produce.

See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding).

Prayer for Relief

Upon hearing these objections, Dr. Chung prays the Court enter an order: (1) sustaining the above-listed objections; (2) quashing Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum to the extent it improperly seeks discovery; and (3) awarding Dr. Chung all relief to which he may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,

Thiebaud Remington Thornton Bailey LLP

By:
R. Gregg Byrd
State Bar No. 90001675
4849 Greenville Avenue, Suite 1150
Dallas, Texas 75206
214-954-2200
214-754-0999 (fax)
gbyrd@trtblaw.com

Attorney for Witness Randy Chung, M.D.