The focus of this series is the various issues which cause objections during the discovery process, outlined below:
Permissibility of Discovery Tool
Number of Interrogatories
Outside the Scope of Discovery
Lacks Specific Description within Request
Vagueness, Lacks Specificity, or Ambiguity of Request
Information Obtainable from Another Source
Information Equally Available to the Other Party
Documents Already Produced
Request Creates Unnecessary Burden, Expense, or Made for Purposes of Harassment
Creation of Document not in Existence
Electronic and Magnetic Data
Personal, Constitutional or Property Rights
Inconvenient Time or Place
Information Unknown or Not in Possession of Responding Party
Persons with Knowledge of Relevant Facts
Request Seeks Admission of a Legal Proposition
Seeks Admission of Hearsay
Seeks Admission of a Matter of Opinion
Assertions of Privilege
Objection due to a Premature Request
The exchange of information and evidence is the primary goal of the discovery process. Even if that information may not be helpful to a litigant’s case, a party must respond to a request in order to determine the strength and scope of a case. A thorough discovery process often results in an out of court settlement. Many rules and guidelines are in place, however, to ensure that the requests are reasonable. If a request falls outside of the strict parameters defined by The Texas Rule of Civil Procedure, the responding party may object to that request. One valid reason for an objection is when a request asks for information that is not yet available. If a real estate transaction has not yet closed, for example, and a party receives a request for the settlement statement in the transaction, the responding party may not be able to provide that information until after the property closes; the party is unable to respond to this request because it is premature.
A proper objection might include the following language:
OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request to the extent it asks for information not yet available because said request is premature. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Tex. 1989).
Litigants involved in the discovery process may feel overwhelmed and unprepared to make and respond to requests. Working with a lawyer familiar with litigation is a wise choice in order to navigate the difficult discovery process and achieve the best possible outcome.
All information provided on Silblawfirm.com (hereinafter "website") is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be used for legal advice. Users of this website should not take any actions or refrain from taking any actions based upon content or information on this website. Users of this site should contact a licensed Texas attorney for a full and complete review of their legal issues.