Reported / Citable
Background
AppClose sued OurFamilyWizard (OFW) in the Western District of Texas. The parties brought competing discovery motions: AppClose sought to compel OFW’s compliance with an earlier discovery order and requested sanctions, while OFW sought limited discovery related to a preliminary injunction and to venue.
OFW also had a pending motion to transfer venue. The parties had resolved or agreed on several disputed discovery items, leaving a narrower set of interrogatories and requests for production for the court to decide.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell granted in part AppClose’s motion to compel. OFW must supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 3 within 30 days and produce responsive, nonprivileged documents covered by the relevant requests for production to the extent it withheld them based on objections other than privilege. The court denied the balance of AppClose’s motion, including its other requested relief.
The court also granted in part OFW’s requests for preliminary-injunction-related and venue discovery. AppClose must produce responsive, nonprivileged material for the remaining disputed requests, limited to June 1, 2024, through the present, within 30 days. The court denied the remaining portions of those motions as moot. Because OFW will receive venue-related discovery, the court denied its transfer motion without prejudice to reassertion after that discovery is received.
Key Takeaways
- OFW must supplement one interrogatory response and cannot withhold responsive, nonprivileged documents under non-privilege objections.
- AppClose must provide specified preliminary-injunction and venue discovery for the period beginning June 1, 2024.
- The venue-transfer motion may be renewed after OFW obtains the authorized venue discovery.
Why It Matters
The order keeps the venue question open while ensuring OFW receives targeted facts relevant to transfer. It also illustrates the court’s preference for resolving discrete discovery disputes through tailored production rather than broad relief.
The court further advised that linked documents functioning as email attachments are discoverable when responsive, accessible, and functionally part of the communication, unless privileged.