The Court found, however, that just because a request seeks public information, does not mean a party can fail to respond to discovery. Horton objected to the interrogatory arguing that that the information is public and equally accessible to TFC. 19: Describe completely all lawsuits brought as a Plaintiff under the TCPA (including the case numbers and districts in which they were filed). Therefore, the Court denied TFC’s motion to compel ROGG No. It would require Horton to recall a vast amount of information that was neither proportional nor relevant to the case. TFC, on the other hand, argued that it should be able to discover “whether Horton has consented to receive text from any senders distributing text messages that may be similar to those at issue here.” Ultimately, the Court found that the request, as written, was too overbroad. Horton objected that the interrogatory sought irrelevant information insofar as it required Horton to know all the entities to whom he has given consent to text him. 17: List all websites, organizations, or other entities from whom you have consented to receive incoming texts.

12 and ordered Horton to respond in full. Therefore, the Court granted TFC’s motion to compel ROGG No. However, as highlighted above, Horton must provide a written answer to an interrogatory without reference to outside material. Horton argued that he provided the facts supporting his allegation in response to TFC’s motion to dismiss. 12: Describe completely all facts that support his allegation that ‘he text messages placed to cellular telephone were made using an automatic telephone dialing system as defined at 47 U.S.C. Therefore, the Court found the video evidence nonresponsive and granted TFC’s motion to compel ROGG No. 3, 2013) (emphasis added) (quoting Equal Rts. However, under Rule 33, “ach interrogatory must … be answered separately and fully in writing under oath,” which has been interpreted “to mean that it is ‘technically improper and unresponsive for an interrogatory to refer to outside material, such as pleadings, depositions, or other interrogatories.’” Kleppinger v. In response, Horton produced a video which he stated evidenced the date, time, and sender’s telephone number for each text message. 8: List the date, time, sender’s telephone number, and amount of money he was billed by the carrier for each and every incoming text message he has received for which he alleges TFC is liable. 2 and ordered Horton to produce documents. Therefore, the Court granted TFC’s motion to compel RFP No. He only made boilerplate objections, which was insufficient to defeat a motion to compel. However, the Court found Horton failed to carry his burden in demonstrating how the request was not relevant. 2: Copies of all telephone billing statements that show he was charged a fee for receiving any text for which he claims TFC is liable.Īgain, Horton argued the requested discovery was not relevant. 1 and ordered Horton to produce documents. As stated above, a party must show specifically how the request was not relevant. However, the Court was not persuaded by Horton’s boilerplate objections. Horton argued the requested discovery in RFP No. 1: Copies of all billing statements from 2021 through the present for any telephone number that received text messages for which he claims TFC is liable to him. TFC moved to compel Horton to produce documents in response to two requests for production (RFPs) and four interrogatories (ROGGs).

2005) (Lynn, J.) (second alteration in original) (quoting McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. Notably, in the Fifth Circuit, “a party who opposes its opponent’s request for production ‘show specifically how … each is not relevant ’” Merrill v.

More specifically, Rule 26(b)(1) provides, “nless otherwise limited by court order … arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” Rule 26(b)(1). The Court granted TFC’s motion to compel in part and denied in part, and granted Horton’s motion to compel in part and denied part.Īs hopefully you all know, Rule 26 provides us with our rule regarding discovery. (TFC), filed motions to compel specific requests for production of documents and interrogatories from each other. In Horton, both the plaintiff and defendant, Texas Federation for Children, PAC, Inc. Hi TCPAWorld! The Baroness here and I have some discovery news today. Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation.

Response to motion to dismiss missouri