law-discovery-disputes | discovery rules | objections to discovery | motion to compel discovery | presuit discovery
discovery sanctions | discovery mandamus || DISCOVERY DISPUTES | PRE-SUIT DISCOVERY | CHALLENGING DISCOVERY
ORDERS BY MANDAMUS | DISCOVERY SANCTIONS | THE DISCOVERY RULE |
“[T]he failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial
constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.” Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.
W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993). When a party receives objections to its discovery, its failure to seek a ruling on
those objections waives its right to the requested discovery. Roberts v. Whitfill, 191 S.W.3d 348, 361 (Tex. App.
—Waco 2006, no pet.). A party cannot sit on an objection and then seek exclusion of the evidence at trial.
See Lewis v. W. Waste Indus., 950 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ); Smith v. O’
Neal, 850 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ).
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
The law is clear that in civil cases a party may not make a blanket objection to all discovery, but must state an
objection to each individual discovery request. See Burton v. West, 749 S.W.2d 505, 507–08 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding) (holding in civil forfeiture case that relator may not make blanket
Fifth Amendment objection to all interrogatories propounded, but must instead state objections to each
individual interrogatory); see also, e.g., In re Edge Capital Group, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont 2005, orig. proceeding) (blanket assertions of Fifth Amendment privilege generally are not permitted
in civil cases); In re R.R., 26 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, orig. proceeding) (trial court could
refuse to allow blanket denial of all discovery in civil case based upon pending criminal case)
Legal or factual basis for each objection required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.2(a). See Thomas v.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 293 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (holding answers to
requests for admissions, to which appellant merely wrote “objection” for each request, improper responses
because objections failed to state legal or factual basis for each objection); see also Unifund CCR Partners v.
Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2008) (noting that to constitute valid objection, “party must state
specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply
with the request”) (quoting TEX R. CIV. P. 193.2(a)).
RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISION IN DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, No. 07-0682 (Tex. Aug. 29,2008)(per curiam)
(credit card suit, deemed admissions, objections to discovery requests, limitations defense must be pleaded)
UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. KENNETH F. WEAVER; from McLennan County; 10th district
(10-06-00207-CV, 231 SW3d 441, 07-11-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing
oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
In re Kiberu, No. 07-0959 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(per curiam)(presuit discovery mandamus)
In Re Jorden, M.D., No. 06-0369 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Brister)
(HCLC, MedMal, permissibility of presuit discovery, Rule 202 deposition)
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion
In re BP Products North America, Inc., No. 07-0119 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2008)(Gaultney, sitting by assignment)
(discovery dispute, apex deposition, Rule 11 agreement, motion to quash notice of deposition, protective order,
discovery mandamus granted)
IN RE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; from Galveston County; 1st district (01-06-00943 CV, ___ S.W.
3d ___, 02-09-2007)
Opinion below: In re BP Products North America Inc., (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 9, 2007)(per curiam)
motion to dismiss mandamus as moot, denied
stay order issued February 22, 2007, lifted
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. [Trial court judge: Susan Criss]
Justice Gaultney delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Gaultney sitting by commission pursuant to Section 22.005 of the Texas Government Code)
(Justice O'Neill not sitting)
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE