Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Oasis Capital v. Digital Brands Group — court ordered the parties to submit a proposed discovery schedule

Reported / Citable

Case
Oasis Capital, LLC and FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC v. Digital Brands Group, Inc.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division
Judge
Susan Hightower
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
1:26-cv-00408-ADA-SH
Topics
Civil procedure; Case management; Discovery

Background

Oasis Capital, LLC and FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC sued Digital Brands Group, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. Judge Alan D Albright referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower under the district’s local rules.

The July 30 order did not resolve any claim or defense. Instead, it addressed the parties’ initial case-management obligations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f).

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Hightower ordered the parties to confer under Rule 26(f) and, by August 20, 2026, file both a joint proposed scheduling and discovery plan and a completed version of the court’s standard scheduling order with proposed dates. If no disputes remain, the court will enter the scheduling order.

The order requires a substantive, good-faith discussion of claims, defenses, settlement and alternative dispute resolution, initial disclosures, phased or follow-up discovery, and electronic-discovery issues. It also directs the parties to use ordinary federal and local-rule motion practice for discovery disputes referred to the magistrate judge, rather than Judge Albright’s usual email practice.

Key Takeaways

  • The order is a docket-control directive, not a merits ruling.
  • The parties must submit their joint scheduling materials by August 20, 2026.
  • Boilerplate discovery objections and improper speaking objections at depositions are unacceptable.

Why It Matters

The order puts the case on a formal discovery-management track and requires the parties to identify disclosure, preservation, production, privilege, and cost issues early. It also signals that discovery disputes in this referred case must be presented through regular motion practice.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top