Brown v. Bridges

2 Citing cases

  1. Tim Long Plumbing, Inc. v. Kinsale Ins. Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-00042 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2020)   Cited 14 times
    Providing examples for boiler plate language, such as “Defendant objects to this Request, as it is overly broad and vague” and “Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case”

    While the Court found, in part, for Plaintiff, Defendant's responses to requests for production were substantially justified in some instances. See Brown v. Bridges, No. 3:12-CV-4947-P, 2014 WL 1317553, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2014) (denying attorneys' fees incurred on a motion to compel because the defendant's responses and objections to the plaintiff's discovery requests were "substantially justified in some instances"). For example, Defendant's objections were not "boilerplate" as Plaintiff suggested, and the objections cloaked in work privilege interpret case law in a reasonable—albeit incorrect—way.

  2. Van Dyke v. Retzlaff

    Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-247 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2020)

    While the Court found for Plaintiff, Defendant's responses to interrogatories were substantially justified in some instances. See Brown v. Bridges, No. 3:12-CV-4947-P, 2014 WL 1317553, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2014) (denying attorneys' fees incurred on a motion to compel because the defendant's responses and objections to the plaintiff's discovery requests were "substantially justified in some instances"). For example, Defendant's responses that Plaintiff had equal access to the answers to interrogatories were substantially justified as the issue constituted a genuine dispute where reasonable people could differ.