A case involving alleged negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty associated with the removal of a benign ovarian cyst, right ovary, and fallopian tube of a 32-year-old woman has concluded in a ‘confidential settlement’ following a year-plus battle of Plaintiffs attempting to compel Defendants’ net worth documents.
A potential catalyst of settlement involves the presiding judge initially granting Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel but later reversing this decision after Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and briefing on “likelihood of success” on the merits of exemplary damages by both sides.
– DETAILS –
1. Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel
Court documents show extensive history of Plaintiffs attempting to obtain allegedly deficient discovery from Defendants from as early as May 2023. While the topic of net worth was generally included in those attempts, it was never explicitly ruled upon.
In Plaintiffs’ Amended Fourth Motion to Compel Dr. Natalie C. Light and Amended Fifth Motion to Compel Health Central, P.A. (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”), filed on December 20, 2024, and updated on January 19 2025, Plaintiffs honed in on the issue of Defendants’ net worth, requesting a written Court order permitting its discovery, citing that “a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant’s net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages.”
Plaintiffs’ Motion was heard on January 22 and, on the same day, the Court issued an Order granting it, agreeing that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and ordering Defendants’ to provide their net worth documents “within one week of this Order in the form of documents that demonstrate Defendants’ assets/liabilities.”
2. Defendants File Motion for Reconsideration
On January 28, Defendants filed a nearly 450-paged Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Plaintiffs’ Amended Fourth Motion to Compel Dr. Natalie C. Light and Amended Fifth Motion to Compel Health Central, P.A (“Defendants’ Motion”), attaching the designations and reports of two expert witnesses and accompanying deposition transcripts.
In support for their Motion, Defendants argued there was “not a substantial likelihood on the merits of Plaintiffs’ alleged claim for gross negligence and punitive damages.”
Additionally, that Plaintiffs’ causation expert “could only testify as to the possibility of proximate cause, not probability” and that Defendant Light and Defendants’ standard of care and causation experts “all credibly opine, based upon the facts and the medical evidence, that Dr. Light properly removed the cyst and ovary, did not engage in fraud, was not grossly negligent, and that Dr. Light’s care and treatment did not cause Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages.”
On January 30, Defendants filed a notice of hearing for their Motion to be heard on March 6.
3. Plaintiffs Amend Motion and Set an Earlier Hearing
On February 12, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Amended Fifth Motion to Compel Dr. Natalie C. Light and Amended Sixth Motion to Compel Health Central, P.A., and for Sanctions (“Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion”). In it, Plaintiffs argued that since the January 22 Order ordered Defendants to produce documents “within one week” and Defendants “failed to request an emergency stay of the Order,” the Order was “still in effect” and, therefore, Defendants “ha[d] not complied” with the Order.
Plaintiffs asked the Court to grant their Motion, “dismiss Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, issue an order compelling Defendants to produce their net worth documents and pay the expenses of this motion to Plaintiffs.” Plaintiffs set an amended notice of hearing for their Motion to be heard on March 5, the day before the hearing on Defendants’ Motion.
Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion by arguing that it “mischaracterize[d] and misrepresent[ed] this matter” and that they had “reasonably” requested the Court to reconsider its Order and, thus, had not disobeyed the Court’s Order. Defendants’ asked for Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion and request for sanctions to “be denied in all things.”
4. Court Asks Parties to Brief “Substantial Likelihood of Success”
During the March 6 hearing on Defendants’ Motion, the Court asked the parties to brief the issue of “substantial likelihood of success” on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages within Section 41.0115 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code. Both parties put their best arguments forward, agreeing on the legal standard, but differentiating between the cases cited and what the evidence showed.
Defendants filed their letter brief on March 11, arguing, among many things, that in order for the court to allow net worth discovery, the Court must find it substantially likely that:
- Plaintiffs can prove by “clear and convincing” evidence malice or gross negligence;
- Plaintiffs can obtain unanimous findings from the jury in regard to “both” liability and amount of exemplary damages;
- Plaintiffs can prove that Defendants’ intended Plaintiffs’ to suffer injury that was “independent and qualitatively different” from the compensable harm; and ultimately
- The evidence presented “does not satisfy these requirements” or “reach the level of ‘substantial likelihood of success’ on the merits.”
Plaintiffs filed their letter brief on March 13, arguing, among many things, that:
- Plaintiffs proved the elements of fraudulent concealment, in establishing that:
- Defendant Light clearly knew what she did was wrong;
- Defendant Light concealed what she did to Plaintiff French for five years; and
- Plaintiff French reasonably relied on what Defendant Light told her.
- Plaintiffs’ pleas of fraud and gross negligence supported the imposition of exemplary damages;
- Plaintiffs’ causation expert established causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; and
- Plaintiffs suffered non-economic, mental anguish, damages.
5. Court Reverses Order – DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions
On March 19, the Court signed an Order of Reconsideration: Denying Plaintiffs’ Fourth Motion to Compel Dr. Natalie C. Light and Amended Fifth Motion to Compel Health Central, P.A. “as to net worth documents being produced pre trial in accordance with the Jan. 22, 2025 Order which is held for naught and vacated.”
6. Parties Settle
On March 20, the parties advised the Court that they reached a confidential settlement.
– CASE INFO –
County:
Dallas
Court:
116th District Court
Judge Presiding:
Hon. Tonya Parker
Cause #:
DC-22-07440
Caption:
Princess French and Jon Berman v. Dr. Natalie C. Light, Health Central Women’s Care, P.A. and Women’s Specialty Surgery Center, LLC
Claims:
Negligence, Fraudulent Inducement, Fraud, Fraudulent Concealment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Counsel for 𝛑:
Allison Batiste Clement of BATTISTE CLEMENT PLLC
Counsel for 𝝙:
William C. Dunnill and Sidney L. Murphy of STEED DUNNILL REYNOLDS BAILEY STEPHENSON LLP