Order | Filed: September 25, 2026
| Entered: September 25, 2026
Rodriguez et al v. Thoratec Corporation et al
Torts/Pers Inj: Product Liability | Texas Northern
Order on Motion to Compel
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Thoratec LLC, SJM Thunder Holding, and Abbott Cardiovascular Inc.'s 59 Motion To Compel Responses, Production, and Answers to Defendants' First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs.
The Court has laid out the standards that govern a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) motion to compel as to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requests for production, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 interrogatories, and the Court incorporates and will apply -- but will not repeat -- those standards here. See Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
For the reasons that Defendants persuasively explain, Plaintiffs have waived their objections to email service of Defendants' First Request for Production and Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories. But expedited responses are not warranted with the recent extension of the discovery period and granting of dismissal without prejudice of all of Plaintiffs' claims, with leave to amend by no later than October 2, 2026.
Rather, the Court orders Plaintiffs to, by Friday, October 23, 2026, serve on Defendants' counsel complete responses to all of the requests for production in Defendants' First Request for Production and produce all non-privileged, unproduced documents and electronically stored information that are responsive to the requests and that are in their possession, custody, or control, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)'s requirements. See Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 575-79.
The Court also orders Plaintiffs to, by Friday, October 23, 2026, serve on Defendants' counsel complete and properly verified answers to all interrogatories in Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33's requirements. See Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 579-81.
Defendants also complain that Plaintiffs did not produce their medical records with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. The Court has previously explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, along with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, "empowers courts to compel parties to sign written releases or authorization forms consenting to the production of various documents," including medical records. Mir v. L-3 Commc'ns Integrated Sys., L.P., 319 F.R.D. 220, 229 (N.D. Tex. 2016).
But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that "a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:... (ii) a copy -- or a description by category and location -- of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment." "Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not require a party to produce documents; the disclosing party has the option of producing a 'copy' of the identified documents or providing a 'description by category and location' of those documents." Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 589.
And the Court determines that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), considering all of the circumstances here and the Court's rulings, the parties will bear their own expenses, including any attorneys' fees, in connection with this motion. And Plaintiffs haven't shown that any briefing here warrants Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions, which Plaintiffs have not properly sought as a matter of procedure in any event.
(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 9/25/2026.)