What is the problem?

Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1984)

“The ultimate purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so that disputes may be decided on what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed.”

Perhaps . . .

TOP TEN POINTERS FROM THE BENCH

10. Draft a jury charge before you draft discovery requests

9.Do a Cost Benefit Analysis

Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1992) Total cost of discovery fees: ≈$300,000

8. DISCOVERY PURPOSE ≠ BUSY WORK

7. Tailor discovery requests to your case

DO NOT FISH

REVIEW CURRENT REQUESTS

ASK YOURSELF WHAT YOU CAN

THROW OUT

In re Sears and In re Ford Motor Company, 146 S.W.3d 328, 331 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding)FORD’S REQUEST: All workers compensation files of present or former Ford mechanics, or other Ford Motors Company's employees who worked in a Ford garage and allege asbestos exposure during that job, in which the claimant is/was alleging asbestos related injury or illness. Names of the employees may be redacted to protect confidential medical information.Appellate Court: “… as phrased, the overly broad requests for worker’s compensation files cannot stand.” Limit to relevant location, product exposure and occupation

Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989)REQUEST: All notes, records, memoranda, documents and communications made that the carrier contends support its allegations [that the award of the Industrial Accident Board was contrary to the undisputed evidence].

Texas Supreme Court: “We hold that such request was vague, ambiguous, and overbroad . . . No one seeks to deny Loftin's right to see evidence against him, but he must formulate his request …with a certain degree of specificity to allow Lumbermens to comply.”

6. RULE 195.1

INTERROGATORIES/REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING

TESTIFYING EXPERTS

5. DO NOT OBJECT JUST TO BE SAFEDefendant objects to this discovery request on the following grounds: It seeks information or documentation which is not relevant to the pending action and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; it is premature as discovery is on-going; it seeks a legal conclusion; it fails to state with specificity the documents being sought; it is vague and ambiguous; it assumes facts not in evidence; the burden of deriving the answer or documentation requested is substantially the same for both parties; it is duplicative; it is overly broad and unduly burdensome; it is not limited in time or scope; it seeks information or documentation protected by the work product privilege; it seeks information or documentation protected by the attorney-client privilege; it seeks information or documentation which invades Defendant's right to privacy; it seeks information regarding a consulting expert whose work product or opinions have not been reviewed by any testifying expert in this matter; it requests that Defendant marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial or to brief legal issues, which is not required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; it calls for speculation; it is harassing; it constitutes a fishing expedition; it requests information about testifying experts, which is obtainable only through a request for disclosure or through a deposition; it exceeds the 25 interrogatory limit under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and it asks the Defendant to admit matters of hearsay; the language “in detail” for the reason that an interrogatory question is an inappropriate means for asking for a detailed description.

Rule 193.2(c) requires good faith factual and legal basis at the time of the objection

Rule 193.2(d) allows an amendment or supplement to state an objection that was inapplicable at the time of the initial response

Under Rule 193.2 (e), the objections may be waived

3.3. Provide a complete response to Provide a complete response to Requests Requests for Disclosurefor Disclosure

Beam v. A.H. Chaney, Inc., 56 S.W.3d 920 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied)

“We assume that the new ‘connection with the case’ requirement was included for a reason, and that there are consequences resulting from failure to comply with it.”Testifying experts regarding attorney’s fees

2. Are these your Requests for Admissions?What is your goal?

Birdo v. Parker, 842 S.W. 2d 699 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1992, writ denied)

“[Admission requests were] never intended to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense.”

1.

“EXPEDITED ACTIONS PROCESS”

Eff. 3/1/13 for cases filed after 3/1/13• Does not apply to Justice Court cases, family, property,

tax or medical malpractice claims

• Party must plead the type and amount of damages

• If a claimant, other than counter-claimant pleads that it is seeking “only monetary relief of $100,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest and attorneys fees” the suit SHALL be governed by expedited actions process

• Level 1 discovery plan applies to: (1) expedited actions; and (2) divorces with no children + estate equal to or less than $50,000

• Discovery period starts when suit filed and continues until 180 days after date of first request for discovery is served

• 6 hours total for depositions of ALL witnesses

• Only 15 Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and Requests for Production

• Can request all documents, electronic stored information and tangible items the responding party may use to support claims or defenses

• Look at old rule for cases filed before 3/1/13