Whether a district court judge's deliberate disregard of available witnesses and limited response time violates due process and federal civil procedure rules in a summary judgment motion

This case originates from a Texas state district court and involves Baptist's response to a complaint that includes Title IV claims and breach of contract. A demand for full disclosure was made on December 14, 2018, and I submitted my complete disclosure on January 11, 2019. However, the complaint was dismissed after the defense met with the judge privately, and I received the dismissal motion a day later. On August 23, 2022, the trial judge in the federal district court inquired about the number of witnesses each party planned to bring, and we both gave him. Instead of proceeding with the trial, Baptist filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming I refused to provide citizens' documentation. Despite my completely disclosed disclosure in state court, Baptist's silence was deafening, ignoring my attempts to get clarification. I later found out that the case had been discussed ex parte with a Baptist representative. On December 16, 2022, the trial judge called me at 210 244-2899 to inform me of his intention to rule on the motion, giving me only 48 hours to respond. This short response time significantly increased the pressure. Whether writ of mandumus should issue direct to both the Appeals and district court to uphold Article IV of the US constitution “full faith and credit clause. ” for the discovery process and exchange of evidence in state court apply in federal court proceedings? 2. Whether a district court judge's delibaratly ignored his knowledge of witnesses available to testify on a trial date before the defendant files a summary judgement motion are in line with "Facts Unavailable to the Nonmovant" In light of Fed.R.Cv.P 56(d)?1.