Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Texas

What Is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

Background

Rule 167(1) provides for the requested production of documents and tangible things for inspection, sampling, testing, photographing and/or copying at a reasonable time and place and in a reasonable manner. (General Elec. Co. v. Salinas (1993) 861 S.W.2d 20, 23 citing Tex.R.Civ.P. Rule 167(1).)

Tex.R.Civ.P. 194.4 regarding production of documents provides:

“Copies of documents and other tangible items ordinarily must be served with the response. But if the responsive documents are voluminous, the response must state a reasonable time and place for the production of documents. The responding party must produce the documents at the time and place stated, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, and must provide the requesting party a reasonable opportunity to inspect them.”

Deposition notices may also contain a request for production of documents as permitted by Rule 199.2(b)(5), the provisions of which will govern the request, service, and response.

How to Structure the Motion

Where a party fails to produce the subpoenaed documents for a deposition, the requesting party may motion the court for an order compelling production. (Jefa Co. v. Mustang Tractor & Equipment Co. (1994) 868 S.W.2d 905, 906 [upholding the trial court's decision where “the trial court granted two motions to compel production of documents and imposed monetary sanctions before striking appellant's pleadings.”])

A party may compel discovery from a nonparty, that is, a person who is not a party or subject to a party's control only by obtaining a court order under Rules 196.7, 202, or 204, or by serving a subpoena compelling a request for production of documents or tangible things, pursuant to Rule 199.2(b)(5) or Rule 200.1(b), served with a notice of deposition on oral examination or written questions. (See Tex.R.Civ.P. 205.1 (c))

A motion to compel should demonstrate that the non-compliant party's conduct and failure to produce documents prejudices the moving party's ability to prepare their case. (Cole v. Huntsville Memorial Hospital (1996) 920 S.W.2d 364, 376 [finding for the movant where the trial court record showed a pattern of discovery abuse where the non-complying party repeatedly failed to produce documents related to their claims and damages.])

Financial Records — Burden to Prevent Production

“The general rule in financial records production cases is that the burden on the discovery of financial records lies with the party seeking to prevent production.” (In re Patel (2007) 218 S.W.3d 911, 916.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering the production of financial documents that are relevant and material to prove net worth. (In re Garth (2007) 214 S.W.3d 190, 194; Delgado v. Kitzman (1990) 793 S.W.2d 332, 333.) However, a trial court does abuse its discretion by ordering the production of financial records “that would not necessarily evidence” net worth. (Garth, 214 S.W.3d at 194.)

Tax Returns — Burden to Show Relevancy

After a party objects to the production of discovery, the party seeking to obtain the tax returns has the burden to show that the tax returns are relevant and material to the issues in the case. (El Centro del Barrio, Inc. v. Barlow (1994) 894 S.W.2d 775, 779.) The burden is thus unlike general discovery requests, which place the burden on the party resisting the discovery. (See Patel, supra, 218 S.W.3d at 916.) The Supreme Court of Texas has repeatedly expressed its “reluctance to allow uncontrolled and unnecessary discovery of federal income tax returns.” (Hall v. Lawlis (1995) 907 S.W.2d 493, 494-95.)

Response

A party seeking immediate relief from a grant of a motion to compel the production of documents may file a motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus in which it requests the Appeals Court to direct the trial court to vacate the discovery order, preventing any further discovery or vacating a motion to compel. (See, e.g., General Elec. Co. v. Salinas (1993) 861 S.W.2d 20, 22.)

Note, however, that “Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal.” General Elec. Co., supra, citing Walker v. Packer (1992) 827 S.W.2d 833, 840.)

The Court’s Decision

The ambit of discovery is broad and permits parties to seek discovery “regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. . . .” (In re Brewer (2008) 255 S.W.3d 708, 711; Tex.R. Civ. P. 192.3(a).) Information is relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the information. (Id.; Tex.R. Evid. 401.)

When the trial court orders discovery exceeding the scope permitted by the rules of procedure, it abuses its discretion. (In re Brewer (2008) 255 S.W.3d 708, 711, citing In re CSX Corp. (2003) 124 S.W.3d 149, 152.) Mandamus review is proper for discovery that is “well outside the proper bounds.” (In re Am. Optical Corp. (1998) 988 S.W.2d 711, 713.) The scope of discovery is generally within the trial court's discretion. (Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall (1995) 909 S.W.2d 491, 492.) Discovery requests, however, must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. (Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson (1995) 898 S.W.2d 813, 815.)

Documents for Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Texas

Sort By

In the Matter of the Marriage of Angela Carol Burkhalter and Chris Raymond Burkhalter document preview

Subpoena to Compel Production of Document and Tangible Things - Houston Me…

3 pages

CAUSE NO. 23-0609465 IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA CAROL BURKHALTER 418th DISTRICT COURT AND CHRIS RAYMOND BURKHALTER § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS SUBPOENA TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE THINGS Iss…

Case Name In the Matter of the Marriage of Angela Carol Burkhalter and Chris Raymond…