Back to Main Page / Back to List of Rules

Rule 193.2. Objecting to Written Discovery (Aug. 1998)


(a) Form and time for objections. A party must make any objection to written discovery in writing either in the response or in a separate document within the time for response. The party must state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objec­tion and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request.

(b) Duty to respond when partially objecting; objection to time or place of production. A party must comply with as much of the request to which the party has made no objection unless it is unreasonable under the circumstances to do so before obtaining a ruling on the objection. If the responding party objects to the requested time or place of

production, the responding party must state a rea­sonable time and place for complying with the request and must comply at that time and place without further request or order.

(c) Good faith basis for objection. A party may object to written discovery only if a good faith factual and legal basis for the objection exists at the time the objection is made.

(d) Amendment. An objection or response to written discovery may be amended or supplemented to state an objection or basis that was not applicable at the time the objection or response initially was made.

(e) Waiver of objection. An objection that is not made within the time required, or that is obscured by numerous unfounded objections, is waived unless the court excuses the waiver for good cause shown.

(f) No objection to preserve privilege. A party should not object to a request for written discovery on the grounds that it calls for production of material or information that is privileged but should instead comply with Rule 193.3. A party who objects to production of privileged material or information does not waive the privilege but must comply with Rule 193.3 when the error is pointed out.

Added by order of Aug. 4, 1998, eff. Jan. 1, 1999.

Prior Amendments Future Amendments
  Nov. 9, 1998, eff. Jan. 1, 1999

Notes and Comments

Comments to 1999 change:

1. This rule imposes a duty upon parties to make a complete response to written discovery based upon all information reasonably available, subject to objections and privileges.

2. An objection to written discovery does not excuse the responding party from complying with the request to the extent no objection is made. But a party may object to a request for "all documents relevant to the lawsuit" as overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents and refuse to comply with it entirely. See Loftin v. Martin, 776 S..W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). A party may also object to a request for a litigation file on the ground that it is overly broad and on its face seeks only materials pro­tected by privilege. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Valdez, 863 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. 1993). A party who objects to production of documents from a remote time period should produce documents from a more recent period unless that production would be burdensome and duplicative should the objection be overruled.

3. This rule governs the presentation of all privileges and work product. It dispenses with objections to written discovery requests on the basis that responsive information or materials are protected by a specific privilege from discovery. Instead, the rule requires parties to state that information or materials have been withheld and to identify the privilege upon which the party relies. The statement should not be made prophylactically, but only when specific information and materials have been withheld. The party must amend or supplement the statement if additional privileged information or material is found subsequent to the initial response. A party need not state that material created by or for lawyers for the litigation has been withheld as it can be assumed that such material will be withheld from virtually any request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or work product.

4. Rule 193.3(d) is a new provision that allows a party to assert a claim of privilege to material or information produced inadvertently without intending to waive the privilege. The provision is commonly used in complex cases to reduce costs and risks in large document productions. The focus is on the intent to waive the privilege, not the intent to produce the material or information. A party who fails to diligently screen documents before producing them does not waive a claim of privilege. This rule is thus broader than Tex. R. Evid. 511 and overturns Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1992), to the extent the two conflict.

5. Any party can request a hearing in which the court will resolve issues brought up in objections or withholding statements. The party seeking to avoid discovery has the burden of proving the objection or privilege.

6. The self-authenticating provision is new. Authentication is, of course, but a condition precedent to admissibility and does not establish admissibility. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(a).


Nov. 9, 1998, eff. Jan. 1, 1999