652 F.Supp.3d 768
N.D. Tex.2023Background
- Bakers contracted to purchase a Dallas residential property; a pre-closing tornado destroyed the property and triggered an insurance claim that defendants sought to retain rather than assign to Bakers.
- Bakers served Requests for Production on defendants on October 20, 2022; responses were due November 21, 2022.
- Defendants did not respond or produce documents until December 20, 2022 (224 pages), after Bakers filed a motion to compel; Bakers contend large, relevant categories of documents were withheld.
- Defendants raised boilerplate objections (relevance, overbreadth, vagueness, undue burden, privilege) and later stated they were not withholding documents based on objections or privilege.
- The magistrate judge found many objections untimely or improper, concluded plaintiffs showed the production was incomplete, and ordered full, non‑objection responses and production of unproduced, non‑privileged responsive materials by a court-ordered date; ordered briefing on fee-shifting under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/waiver of objections to RFPs | Defendants failed to serve timely objections (due Nov 21), so objections waived. | Delay caused by counsel illness and production occurred after motion; some privilege objections preserved. | Many objections untimely and thus subject to waiver; but court did not find waiver of privilege/work-product claims solely from the 29‑day delay and addressed privilege separately. |
| Sufficiency of objections (boilerplate) | Defendants’ relevance, overbreadth, vagueness, and undue‑burden objections are boilerplate and lack specificity; must be overruled. | Defendants asserted these objections generally and said they would produce directly relevant documents. | Court overruled or found improper most non‑privilege objections as unsupported boilerplate and for failing to meet Rule 34(b) and Rule 26 standards. |
| Adequacy/completeness of production | Production of 224 pages is incomplete; specific withheld communications (e.g., with AIG, insurance application, trust documents) appear to exist and were not produced. | Defendants produced all responsive documents in their possession and will supplement if additional files are identified; cannot be compelled to produce non‑existent documents. | Court found plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable inference that additional responsive documents exist and ordered defendants to conduct reasonable inquiry, produce unproduced non‑privileged responsive ESI/documents, and serve complete written responses without objections. |
| Award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) | Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees and costs because motion granted and defendants’ failures were not substantially justified. | Defendants should be allowed to explain why fees should not be awarded (e.g., substantial justification, other exceptions). | Motion to compel granted; court ordered defendants given opportunity to respond by a set deadline why expenses should not be awarded and allowed plaintiffs a reply; court reserved decision on fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir. 1990) (party resisting discovery must show specifically how each request is not relevant).
- Brennan’s, Inc. v. Dickie Brennan & Co., 376 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 26(e) imposes a duty to supplement discovery responses).
- In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1989) (untimely objections to discovery may be waived).
- E.E.O.C. v. BDO USA, L.L.P., 876 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2017) (privilege log must provide sufficient information to test privilege claims; persistent failures may waive privilege).
- Jolivet v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 340 F.R.D. 7 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (discussing Rule 26(b)(5)(A) privilege‑log obligations).
- Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (objections must state whether responsive materials are being withheld; privilege log requirements).
- Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Chung, 321 F.R.D. 250 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (explaining Rule 26(b)(1) relevance and proportionality standards).
- Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (timeliness and specificity requirements for discovery objections; limits on boilerplate objections).