WISE.POSTMACRO2 (DO NOT DELETE) 6/10/2013 9:36 AM
2013] TEXAS DISCOVERY RESPONSE 541
As with interrogatories and other written discovery requests, production
requests must be served no later than thirty days (and in some cases thirty-
three or thirty-four days) before the discovery period ends.
107
Production requests can seek the inspection, sampling, testing,
photographing, or copying of any documents or tangible things within
discovery’s scope.
108
Given Texas Rule 196.1’s use of the broad term
“tangible things,” it is difficult to imagine anything that cannot be required
to be produced, tested, or sampled under appropriate circumstances. For
example, one federal court, under Federal Rule 34, on which Texas Rule
196 is based, ordered a dead body exhumed and produced
109
and others
have ordered DNA testing
110
and handwriting exemplars.
111
Rule 196. Id. Although a Texas Rule 196 production request cannot be served on nonparties,
documents and tangible things can be obtained from them under Texas Rule 205.3(a). Id.
205.3(a); see id. 196.1(a). Texas Rule 196 also governs requests and motions for entry upon
parties and nonparties’ real property. Id. 196.7.
107
Id. 196.1(a). If the production request is served by mail or fax before 5:00 p.m., it must be
served at least thirty-three days before the discovery period’s end. Id. 21a. If it is served by fax
after 5:00 p.m., the request must be served at least thirty-four days before the discovery period
ends. Id.
108
Id. 196.1(a).
109
Zalatuka v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 108 F.2d 405, 405 (7th Cir. 1939).
110
E.g., McGrath v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 209 F.R.D. 55, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
111
E.g., Harris v. Athol-Royalston Reg’l Sch. Dist. Comm., 200 F.R.D. 18, 20–21 (D. Mass.
2001) (citing cases).
Courts have ordered the following items produced: (1) business records, In re Rogers, 200
S.W.3d 318, 322 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, orig. proceeding); Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v.
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 130 F.R.D. 507, 509 (D.D.C. 1990); (3) tax returns, Hall v.
Lawlis, 907 S.W.2d 493, 494–95 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); Scott v. Arex, Inc., 124 F.R.D.
39, 41 (D. Conn. 1989); (4) social security records, Grove v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 855 F. Supp.
113, 116 (W.D. Pa. 1993); (5) bank records, In re Gonzalez, No. 14-10-01186-CV, 2010 Tex.
App. LEXIS 9831, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 14, 2010, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.); Daval Steel Prods., Div. of Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357,
1367–68 (2d Cir. 1991); (6) photographs, T
EX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(b); (7) movies and videotapes,
Daniels v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 110 F.R.D. 160, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Food Lion, Inc. v.
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 165 F.R.D. 454, 457 (M.D.N.C. 1996); (8) drawings, T
EX. R. CIV. P.
192.3(b); Fin. Bldg. Consultants, Inc. v. Am. Druggists Ins. Co., 91 F.R.D. 59, 60 (N.D. Ga.
1981); (9) employment records, Tri-State Wholesale Associated Grocers, Inc. v. Barrerra, 917
S.W.2d 391, 399 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, writ dism’d); Cason v. Builders Firstsource-Se. Grp.,
Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 242, 248 (W.D.N.C. 2001); (10) contracts, Chamberlain v. Cherry, 818
S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, orig. proceeding); Carey-Can., Inc. v. Cal. Union
Ins. Co., 118 F.R.D. 242, 244–45 (D.D.C. 1986); (11) deposition transcripts, In re Domestic Air
Transp. Antitrust Litig., 142 F.R.D. 354, 355–56 (N.D. Ga. 1992); Biben v. Card, 119 F.R.D. 421,
425 (W.D. Mo. 1987); (12) fingerprints, Harris, 206 F.R.D. at 33; Alford v. Ne. Ins. Co., 102