In re Luke B. Berry, M.D., 04-25-00835-CV, February 25, 2026.
On appeal from the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fourth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, affirming a trial court’s authority to compel an individual party to produce discovery materials held by non-party business entities. The court further clarified that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by revisiting and overruling its own prior discovery orders or previously sustained objections.
Relevance to Family Law
For family law practitioners, this ruling is a significant blow to the "entity shield" often utilized in high-net-worth property litigation. When a spouse controls a professional corporation, LLC, or private equity interest that is not a party to the divorce, they frequently object to discovery on the grounds that the records belong to a "non-party." This case reinforces the ability to compel the individual spouse to produce those entity records directly, provided they have "control" over them, while also confirming that discovery "wins" at the interlocutory stage are never truly safe from a trial court’s reconsideration.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The underlying litigation involved a dispute between Morningstar Winans and Luke B. Berry, M.D. During the discovery process, Winans sought materials related to various business entities associated with Dr. Berry, despite those entities not being named parties to the suit. Initially, the trial court appears to have shielded some of this information through prior orders or by sustaining Dr. Berry’s objections. However, on December 10, 2025, the trial court issued a new Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, effectively reversing its previous stance. This order compelled Dr. Berry, in his individual capacity, to produce discovery materials belonging to these non-party entities. Dr. Berry sought a writ of mandamus, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling its own settled discovery orders and by requiring an individual to produce documents from separate legal entities.
Issues Decided
- Does a trial court abuse its discretion by overruling a discovery order it previously entered?
- Does a trial court abuse its discretion by overruling discovery objections that it had previously upheld?
- Does a trial court abuse its discretion by ordering an individual party to respond to discovery requests for materials held by non-party entities?
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3 & 192.7: Define the scope of discovery and the concept of "possession, custody, or control," which extends beyond physical possession to include a party’s legal right to obtain the documents.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a): The standard for denying mandamus relief when a relator fails to meet the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion.
- Interlocutory Authority: The inherent power of a trial court to revise, modify, or overrule its own interlocutory orders at any time before a final judgment is signed.
Application
The San Antonio Court of Appeals applied a highly deferential standard to the trial court’s discovery management. Regarding the first two issues—the trial court’s "about-face" on prior rulings—the court reaffirmed the principle that discovery orders are interlocutory. Because the trial court retains plenary power over the case, it is not "wed" to its previous rulings and may revisit objections as the evidentiary record develops. The most significant application of law concerned the "control" of non-party records. Under Texas discovery rules, a party must produce documents within their "possession, custody, or control." The court’s refusal to grant mandamus suggests that Dr. Berry failed to prove that he lacked the legal right to obtain these documents from his own entities. This signals that when a party has a high degree of authority over an entity, the "non-party" status of that entity is insufficient to block discovery directed at the individual.
Holding
The court held that the relator failed to establish that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied in its entirety. The court specifically held that a trial court possesses the authority to revisit and overrule its own prior discovery rulings and objections. Such actions do not constitute an abuse of discretion, as the court’s control over its interlocutory orders remains absolute until final judgment. Furthermore, the court held that the order compelling an individual to produce records from non-party entities was not shown to be an abuse of discretion. This places the burden squarely on the relator to prove a lack of "control" over the entity's records to avoid production.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for obtaining business records without the need for cumbersome third-party subpoenas. If the opposing spouse is an officer or majority owner of an entity, you should serve requests for production directly on the spouse for the entity's records. If they object based on "non-party" status, cite this case to argue that the individual spouse has the "control" necessary to produce the documents. Additionally, if you previously lost a motion to compel, do not hesitate to re-file based on new testimony or a different theory of the case; the trial court has the power to change its mind.
Checklists
Establishing "Control" Over Non-Party Entities
- Identify the party's ownership percentage and voting rights within the entity.
- Obtain the entity’s formation documents (Bylaws, Operating Agreements) to prove the party’s right to access records.
- Review prior tax returns to see if the party has previously accessed or reported the entity’s financial data.
- Depose the party regarding their day-to-day management and their ability to command the production of documents from entity employees.
Avoiding Discovery "Finality" Traps
- Treat every discovery "win" as temporary; continue to build the record to support the objection.
- If the court overrules a prior favorable ruling, immediately request a stay and consider the impact on "possession, custody, or control" arguments.
- Ensure that any order sustaining an objection is clearly drafted to include the specific legal grounds, making it harder for a successor judge or the same judge to reverse course without a change in facts.
Citation
In re Luke B. Berry, M.D., No. 04-25-00835-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 25, 2026, orig. proceeding [mandamus denied]).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This civil ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce and custody cases to pierce the veil of "discovery immunity" often claimed by business owners. In property disputes, a spouse may claim they cannot produce corporate general ledgers because the corporation "is not a party." In re Berry effectively weakens this shield. It allows the practitioner to bypass the "non-party" hurdle and force the spouse to act as the conduit for the entity's data. Furthermore, in cases involving "phantom income" or "retained earnings" within a business, this ruling ensures that the trial court can compel the production of the very documents needed to prove the community's interest or the spouse's true resources for child support, regardless of whether the business itself is joined in the suit. ~~662d4eec-aa7c-46c1-8db5-82a8e672ffa2~~
