“THE OBJECTION TO YOUR DESIRES” A REVIEW OF DISCOVERY OBJECTION PRACTICE IN TEXAS

1. “THE OBJECTION TO YOUR DESIRES” A REVIEW OF DISCOVERY OBJECTION PRACTICE IN TEXAS Paul N. Gold

3. PREMISE 1. Objections generally suck, but everyone makes them; 2. Objections avoid work; 3. Objections buy additional time; 4. Objections serve as a diversionary tactic; they conceal the truth; 5. Very few objections when made are supported by law and facts.

4. OBJECTIONS ARE THE DEVIL

5. ABUSIVE OBJECTION PRACTICE LEADS TO LAWYERS’ CREED 1999 AMENDMENTS TO TEXAS DISCOVERY RULES

6. 2015 AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 26 AND 34

7. “PROPORTIONALITY” THE MOTHER OF ALL SATANS ?

8. sss SILVER LINING THE SILVER LINING OBJECTIONS - WITHHOLDING

9. F.R.C.P. 34(b)(2)(C) Objections: An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

10. KEY CASES • McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1486 (5th Cir. 1990) • Heller v. City Of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. Dal. Div. 2014) • Carr v. State Farm Mutual, 2015 WL 8010920 (N.D. Tex. Dal. Div. 2015)

11. SIGNING OBJECTIONS “TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES” THE NEW FRONTIER?

12. Heller v. City Of Dallas

13. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)

14. REACTION v. REFLECTION

15. TEX. R. CIV. P. 191.3

16. NO FISHING!

17. “It’s the pleadings, stupid!”

18. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS In re Waste Management of Texas, Inc., Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2011 WL 3855745 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2011)

19. THE OBJECTION PARADOX PLAY EM OR LOSE EM Gutierrez V. D.I.S.D

20. Failure to timely assert objection or privilege may result in waiver. 193.2(e) In re Soto, 270 S.W.3d732 (Tex. App. Amarillo- 2008, orig. proceeding [mand.denied]).

21. A WHOLE BOX OF PANDORAS

22. THE DEADLY OBJECTION SINS

23. NO GENERAL, BOILER PLATE OBJECTIONS

24. NO PROPHYLACTIC OBJECTIONS NO PRESERVATION OF OBJECTIONS

25. NO “SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING OBJECTION”

26. TEX. R. CIV. P. 193 cmt. 2 “An objection to written discovery does not excuse the responding party from complying with the request to the extent no objection is made.”

27. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

28. NO OBJECTIONS, BUT MOTIONS FOR PROTECTION MIGHT BE OK In re Soto, 270 S.W.3d732 (Tex. App. Amarillo- 2008, orig. proceeding [mand.denied]).

29. RULE 193.6

30. AFFIDAVITS v. RECORDS BILLS = MEDICAL RECORDS

31. INTERROGATORIES

32. CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES Sheffield Development Company, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc., --- S.W.3d ----, 2012 WL 6632500 (Tex.App.-Waco)

33. MARSHALING EVIDENCE

34. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

35. OVERBREADTH

36. Lofton V. Martin

37. SPECIFICITY TYPE CATEGORY GEOGRAPHY TIME SIMILARITY TO CLAIM

38. MOTION TO LIMIT RULE 192.4 CUMULATIVE DUPLICATIVE LESS INTRUSIVE MEANS UNDULY BURDENSOME -PROPORTIONALITY

39. “Any party who seeks to exclude matters from discovery on grounds that the requested information is unduly burdensome, costly or harassing to produce, has the affirmative duty to plead and prove the work necessary to comply with discovery” because “the trial court cannot make an informed judgment on whether to limit discovery on this basis or place the cost for complying with the discovery” in the absence of such evidence. Indep. Insulating Glass/SW, Inc. v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798,802 (Tex. App. – FW 1987, writ dism’d)

40. BURDEN MUST BE UNDUE ISK Biotech Corp. v. Lindsay, 933 S.W.2d 56, 569 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1996 orig. proceeding

41. AMENDED FED. R. CIV. P. 34 WITHHOLDING STATEMENT

42. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

43. TYPICAL OBJECTIONS CALLS FOR QUESTION OF LAW CALLS FOR QUESTION OF FACT CALLS FOR ME TO MAKE A DECISION!

44. ORAL DEPOSITIONS

45. SCOPE ORDER OF DISCOVERY

46. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITIONS

47. RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSING THE VENTRILOQUIST’S DUMMY

48. OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS – SCOPE TIMELINESS OF OBJECTIONS

49. DEPOSITIONS ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS

50. AFFIDAVITS MOTIONS FOR PROTECTION