Harris v. Henry et al

Filing 91

ORDER DENYING 70 Motion to Compel; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 72 Motion to Compel; DENYING 75 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Susan Hightower. (dm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION RIGEL HARRIS, Plaintiff v. THOMAS J. HENRY, individually; THOMAS J. HENRY LAW, PLLC; ROBERT T. HERRERA, individually; and GRAY PICTURE, LLC, Defendants § § § § § § § § Case No. 1:22-cv-00366-DAE ORDER Now before the Court are Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC’s Motion to Compel, filed May 1, 2024 (Dkt. 70), as supplemented (Dkt. 86); Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC, filed May 14, 2024 (Dkt. 72); Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC’s Opposed Second Motion to Compel, filed June 12, 2024 (Dkt. 75); the associated response and reply briefs; and the Joint Advisory for July 3, 2024 Discovery Hearing, filed July 1, 2024 (Dkt. 85) by Order of the Court (Dkt. 80).1 The Court held a hearing on the motions on July 3, 2024, at which all parties appeared through counsel and had an opportunity to be heard on the pending motions.2 1 By Text Order entered July 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Robert T. Herrera and Gray Picture, LLC’s Motion to Join and Adopt Co-Defendants Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC’s Motion to Compel and Second Motion to Compel (Dkt. 84). The Court also heard arguments from Harris and the Henry Defendants on Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Deposition and for Sanctions against Defendants Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC, filed June 26, 2024 (Dkt. 87), but does not address that motion in this Order because Defendants have not yet filed their response, which is due on this date. By Text Orders entered May 2, May 16, June 13, and July 2, 2024, the District Court referred the motions to this Magistrate Judge for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. 2 For the reasons stated from the bench during the hearing: • Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 70) and Second Motion to Compel (Dkt. 75) are DENIED. Counsel for both parties indicated at the hearing that they continue to confer regarding production of additional documents addressed in the Henry Defendants’ Second Motion to Compel mutually agreeable in scope, and the Court encourages them to do so. • Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants Thomas J. Henry and Thomas J. Henry Law, PLLC (Dkt. 72) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is DENIED as to items 1-4, 6, 11, 23, 29, 31, 33-35, 38-39, 44-46, and 54-55 on the Henry Defendants’ Privilege Log and GRANTED as to the remaining documents. The Henry Defendants are ORDERED to produce the remaining documents without redaction by the discovery deadline of July 12, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED on July 3, 2024. SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?