Form 18-25

Objections and Assertions of Privilege to Discovery Requests

 

1.Adding Requests for Admission/Requests for Disclosure/Requests for Production to Interrogatories

Clause 18-25

1

Objection. Instruction No. [no.] impermissibly seeks to add [Requests for Admission/Requests for Disclosure/Requests for Production] to the proponent’s Interrogatories and is thus outside the proper scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.

2.Adding Interrogatories/Requests for Admission/Requests for Disclosure to Requests for Production

Clause 18-25

2

Objection. Instruction No. [no.] impermissibly seeks to add [Interrogatories/Requests for Admission/Requests for Disclosure] to the proponent’s Requests for Production and is thus outside the proper scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.

3.Amount and Method of Calculating Economic Damages

Clause 18-25

3

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to the amount and method of calculating economic damages. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(d) (stipulat­ing that information pertaining to the amount and method of calculating economic damages must be disclosed pursuant to a Request for Disclosure). Moreover, this [Request/Interroga­tory] is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in failing to limit its inquiry by scope of subject matter and time. This [Request/Interrogatory] also attempts to require Respondent to marshal all of its available proof or the proof it intends to offer at trial, contrary to the rules of discov­ery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1, cmt. 1. Further, this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and harassing, calls for material not relevant to any claims or defenses, and is not reasonably cal­culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4.Burdensome

Clause 18-25

4

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is unduly burdensome.

5.Consulting Experts

Clause 18-25

5

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to con­sulting experts, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e); Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.1.

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the consulting-expert privilege. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e). Therefore, the requested information may not be discovered. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a) (“In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged . . . .”)

6.Contentions

Clause 18-25

6

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to con­tentions, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(j); Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1 (“An interrogatory may inquire whether a party makes a specific legal or factual conten­tion and may ask the responding party to state the legal theories and to describe in general the factual bases for the party’s claims or defenses, but interrogatories may not be used to require the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial.”); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(c) (stipulating that information pertaining to legal theories and factual bases of claims or defenses must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure). Moreover, this [Request/Interrogatory] is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in failing to limit its inquiry by scope of subject matter and time. This [Request/Interrogatory] also attempts to require Respondent to marshal all of its available proof or the proof it intends to offer at trial, contrary to the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1, cmt. 1. Further, this [Request/Interrogatory] is unduly burdensome and harassing, calls for material not rele­vant to any claims or defenses, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7.Definitions and Instructions

a.Generally Broad Terms

Clause 18-25

7

Objection. The terms “[insert term]” and “[insert term]” are undefined, vague, and ambiguous.

Objection. This definition attempts to require Respondent to marshal all of its available proof or the proof it intends to offer at trial, contrary to the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1, cmt. 1. The definition expands the natural meaning of the words to an extent that makes responding to the Interrogatories extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Objections. Definition No. [no.] of “[insert term]” is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3.   

b.“Consulting Expert”

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “consulting expert” seeks to circumvent the defini­tion of the phrase provided in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.7(d) and thus seeks docu­ments beyond the scope of discovery. This definition is also overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e).

c.“Contentions”

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “contentions” is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(j).

d.“Documents and Tangible Things”

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “documents and tangible things” is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing, and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(b). A party must describe with reasonable particularity the item sought. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.1(b) (“The request must specify the items to be produced or inspected, either by individual item or by category, and describe with reasonable particularity each item and category.” (emphasis added)); Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding) (distinguishing between “specificity” and “overbreadth” and explaining that appropriate objections to requests for production include both “specificity” and “overbreadth”); Texaco, Inc. v. Dominguez, 812 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex. App.—San Anto­nio 1991, orig. proceeding) (explaining that request for production “must be specific, must establish materiality, and must recite precisely what is wanted”). Respondent does not know what documents are being requested, because the Request does not describe the items requested with any reasonable particularity. See Chamberlain v. Cherry, 818 S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, orig. proceeding) (certain requests for production were proper only because they were “set forth . . . with reasonable particularity”).

e.“Electronic or Magnetic Data”

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “electronic or magnetic data” seeks to circumvent the rules of discovery and thus seeks documents beyond the scope of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.4. This definition is also overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3.

f.“Indemnity Agreements”

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “indemnity agreements” is overly broad, unduly bur­densome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(f).

g.“Insuring Agreements”

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “insuring agreements” is overly broad, unduly bur­densome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(f).

h.Persons with Knowledgeable Facts

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “persons with knowledge of relevant facts” is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(c).

i.Possession, Custody, or Control

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “possession, custody, or control” seeks to circumvent the definition of the phrase provided in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.7(b) and thus seeks documents beyond the scope of discovery.

j.Potential Parties

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “potential parties” is overly broad, unduly burden­some, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(i).

k.Persons with Knowledge of Relevant Facts

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “statements of persons with knowledge of relevant facts” is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(h).

l.Settlement Agreements

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “settlement agreements” is overly broad, unduly bur­densome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(g).

m.Testifying Expert

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “testifying expert” seeks to circumvent the definition of the phrase provided in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.7(d) and thus seeks documents beyond the scope of discovery. This definition is also overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e).

n.Trial Witness

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “trial witnesses” is overly broad, unduly burden­some, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(d).

o.Written Discovery

Objection. Definition No. [no.] of “written discovery” seeks to circumvent the defini­tion of the phrase provided in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.7(a) and thus seeks docu­ments beyond the scope of discovery. This definition is also overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing and thus beyond the scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3.

8.Documents and Tangible Things

Clause 18-25

8

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to docu­ments and tangible things, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(b); Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.1; Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.

9.Duplicative

Clause 18-25

9

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is duplicative of [Interrogatory/Request for Admission/Request for Disclosure/Request for Production] No. [no.].

10.Equal or Superior Access

Clause 18-25

10

Objection. [Describe items] are subject to the equal or superior access of the proponent.

11.Exceeds Number of Permissible Interrogatories

Clause 18-25

11

a.If under Level 1:

Objection. This Interrogatory exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed to be pro­pounded on Respondent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.2(b)(3) (providing that written interrogato­ries under Discovery Control Plan Level 1 are limited to fifteen in number and that “[e]ach discrete subpart of an interrogatory is considered a separate interrogatory”).

b.If under Level 2:

Objection. This Interrogatory exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed to be pro­pounded on Respondent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.3(b)(3) (providing that written interrogato­ries under Discovery Control Plan Level 2 are limited to twenty-five in number and that “[e]ach discrete subpart of an interrogatory is considered a separate interrogatory”).

c.If under Level 3—where order addresses number of interrogatories:

Objection. This Interrogatory exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed to be pro­pounded on Respondent. See Scheduling Order dated [date].

d.If under Level 3—where order does NOT address number of interrogatories and Discovery Control Plan Level 1 would otherwise be applicable:

Objection. This Interrogatory exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed to be pro­pounded on Respondent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4(b) (providing that under Discovery Con­trol Plan Level 3, “[t]he discovery limitations of Rule 190.2, if applicable, or otherwise of Rule 190.3 apply unless specifically changed in the discovery control plan ordered by the court”); Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.2(c)(3) (providing that written interrogatories are limited to twenty-five in number, and that “[e]ach discrete subpart of an interrogatory is considered a separate interrogatory”).

e.If under Level 3—where order does NOT address number of interrogatories and Discovery Control Plan Level 2 would otherwise be applicable:

Objection. This Interrogatory exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed to be pro­pounded on Respondent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4(b) (providing that under Discovery Con­trol Plan Level 3, “[t]he discovery limitations of Rule 190.2, if applicable, or otherwise of Rule 190.3 apply unless specifically changed in the discovery control plan ordered by the court”); Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.3(b)(3) (providing that written interrogatories are limited to twenty-five in number, and that “[e]ach discrete subpart of an interrogatory is considered a separate interrogatory”).

12.Fishing Expedition

Clause 18-25

12

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in fail­ing to limit its inquiry by scope of subject matter and time. Indeed, this [Request/Interroga­tory] is nothing more than a fishing expedition, which is not permitted under the rules of discovery. See K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (clarifying that no discovery devices may be used for fishing expeditions (citing Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989) (explaining that requests for production may not be used for fishing expeditions, but implying that interrogatories and depositions may be so used)).

13.Improper Discovery Tool

Clause 18-25

13

Objection. This Interrogatory improperly seeks to add [Requests for Admission/Requests for Disclosure/Requests for Production] to Interrogatories, and is thus outside the proper scope of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.

14.Indemnity and Insuring Agreements

Clause 18-25

14

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to indemnity and insuring agreements, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(g) (stipulating that information pertaining to indemnity and insuring agreements must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

15.Legal Theories and Factual Bases of Claims or Defenses

Clause 18-25

15

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to legal theories and factual bases of claims or defenses, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(c) (stipulating that information pertaining to legal theories and factual bases of claims or defenses must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1).

16.Limits by Scope or Time

Clause 18-25

16

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in fail­ing to limit its inquiry by scope of subject matter and time.

17.Marshaling Evidence

Clause 18-25

17

Objection. This Interrogatory attempts to require this Defendant to marshal all of this Defendant’s available proof or the proof this Defendant intends to offer at trial, contrary to the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.

18.Medical Records and Bills—Obtained via Authorization of Requesting Party

Clause 18-25

18

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to med­ical records and bills obtained by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(k) (stipulating that information pertaining to medical records and bills obtained by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party must be dis­closed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

19.Medical Records and Bills—Related to Injuries or Damages Asserted

Clause 18-25

19

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to med­ical records and bills related to injuries or damages asserted. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(j) (stip­ulating that information pertaining to medical records and bills related to injuries or damages asserted must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

20.Names of Parties

Clause 18-25

20

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to the correct names of parties to the lawsuit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(a) (stipulating that informa­tion pertaining to the correct names of parties to a lawsuit must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

21.Outside the Scope of Discovery

Clause 18-25

21

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information outside the scope of discov­ery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3, 196, 197.

22.Persons with Knowledge of Relevent Facts

Clause 18-25

22

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to per­sons with knowledge of relevant facts, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(c); Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(e) (stipulating that information pertaining to persons with knowledge of relevant facts must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

23.Potential Parties

Clause 18-25

23

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to potential parties, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(i); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(b) (stipulating that information pertaining to a potential party must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

24.Privilege

Clause 18-25

24

a.Clergy-Penitent

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the clergy-penitent privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 505.

b.Consulting Expert

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the consulting-expert privilege. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e)

c.Identity of Informer

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the identity-of-informer privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 508.

d.Lawyer-Client

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the lawyer-client privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 503.

e.Mental Health

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the mental health privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 510.

f.Party Communication

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the party-communication privilege. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3 cmt. 8 (“Party Communication” included in definition of “Work Product” in rule 192.5).

g.Peer Review

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information protected by statute, see, e.g., Tex. R. Evid. 502, including state and federal statutes pertaining to medical committees and medical peer review committees.

h.Physician-Patient

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the physician-patient privilege. See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 159.002; Tex. R. Evid. 509.

i.Political Vote

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the political-vote privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 506.

j.Required Reports Privileged by Statute

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information privileged by statute. See Tex. R. Evid. 502.

k.Spousal Privilege

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to spou­sal privileges. See Tex. R. Evid. 504.

l.Third-Person Privacy

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the personal and proprietary privileges of a third person, including that person’s constitutional rights of privacy. Respondent will not unilaterally produce such information absent motion, hearing, and order of the Court or without proper authorization of the interested third person.

m.Trade Secrets

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks confidential and proprietary information subject to the trade-secrets privilege. See Tex. R. Evid. 507.

n.Work Product

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the work-product privilege. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5.

25.Relevance

Clause 18-25

25

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] calls for information not relevant to any claim or defense and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

26.Settlement Agreements

Clause 18-25

26

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to set­tlement agreements, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(g); Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(h).

27.Specificity

Clause 18-25

27

Objection. This Request fails to specify the items to be produced with reasonable par­ticularity as required by the rules of discovery. In making a Request for Production, a party must describe with reasonable particularity the item sought. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.1(b) (“The request must specify the items to be produced or inspected, either by individual item or by category, and describe with reasonable particularity each item and category.” (emphases added)); Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. pro­ceeding) (distinguishing between “specificity” and “overbreadth,” and explaining that appro­priate objections to requests for production include both “specificity” and “overbreadth”); Texaco, Inc. v. Dominguez, 812 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, orig. pro­ceeding) (explaining that a request for production “must be specific, must establish material­ity, and must recite precisely what is wanted”). Defendant does not know what documents are being requested, because the Request is not specific as to the items sought. See Chamberlain v. Cherry, 818 S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, orig. proceeding) (holding that certain requests for production were proper only because they were “set forth . . . with reason­able particularity”).

28.Statements of Persons with Knowledge of Relevant Facts

Clause 18-25

28

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to state­ments of persons with knowledge of relevant facts, in violation of Texas Rule of Civil Proce­dure 192.3(h); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(i) (stipulating that information pertaining to witness statements must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure).

29.Testifying Experts

Clause 18-25

29

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to testi­fying expert witnesses, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e); Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(f) (stipulating that information pertaining to testifying experts must be disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure); Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.1.

30.Third-Party Personal Information

Clause 18-25

30

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] calls for information not relevant to any claim or defense and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] calls for matters subject to the pro­prietary privilege of a third party, including that party’s individual rights of privacy.

31.Trial Exhibits

Clause 18-25

31

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is premature and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166, 190, 192.3. Respondent will respond to this [Request/Interrogatory] pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Orders, including without limitation, any scheduling orders entered in this case.

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the work-product privilege. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5. Respondent will not produce any trial exhibits without a court order.

32.Trial Witnesses

Clause 18-25

32

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is premature and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166, 190, 192.3(d). Respondent will respond to this Interrog­atory pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Orders, including without lim­itation, any scheduling Orders entered in this case.

Assertion of Privilege. This [Request/Interrogatory] seeks information subject to the work-product privilege. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5. Respondent will not produce a list of trial witnesses without a court order.

33.Witness Statements

Clause 18-25

33

Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] improperly seeks discovery pertaining to wit­ness statements, in violation of the rules of discovery. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(i) (stipulating that information pertaining to witness statements must be disclosed pursuant to a Request for Disclosure).

34.Objections to Form

Clause 18-25

34

Ambiguous

Argumentative

Asked and Answered (see section entitled “Duplicative”)

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Compound

Confusing

General (i.e., too general)

Harassing

Leading

Misquoting (e.g., a deponent)

Narrative (i.e., calls for a narrative)

Repetitious (see section entitled “Duplicative”)

Speculation (i.e., calls for speculation)

Unintelligible

Vague

(For example: Objection. This [Request/Interrogatory] is vague, ambiguous, utterly unintelligible, and harassing, and it assumes facts not in evidence.)