Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 1 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

United States District Court

Western District of Texas

Austin Division

Pipe Hitters Union, LLC,

Plaintiff

v.

Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-167-RP

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections

& Compel Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Pipe Hitters Union, LLC files this Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections 

and Compel Discovery Responses. Plaintiff respectfully shows the Court the following:

1. Introduction

This suit is part of a long-standing copyright infringement dispute. Plaintiff is a 

company founded by combat veterans that focuses on selling men’s and women’s apparel, 

drinkware, and a variety of “swag”—all emblazoned with Plaintiff’s logo and name. When 

Plaintiff became aware that a motorcycle club was using its name and infringing on its 

copyrights, it filed suit to stop the infringement.1 Because Plaintiff was not looking for a 

financial windfall, it settled that underlying case with the motorcycle club with an 

agreement to stop the MC’s infringement and allow for a limited-use license for a nominal 

fee.

However, displeased with the settlement and intending to intentionally infringe and 

1 See Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC et. al., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1134.

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 7
Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 2 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

damage Plaintiff (while thumbing their nose at the legal system), a group of members from 

that MC broke off and made a new limited liability company—Defendant Pipe Hitters Union 

MC, LLC—and waged a deliberate and blatant campaign to violate the settlement and 

further infringe Plaintiff’s copyrights. This necessitated further legal action, seeking to 

enforce the settlement agreement and hold the defendants in contempt of court. 

Throughout the proceedings, Defendants (led by Charlie Deckert) have made a mockery of 

the system by blatantly refusing to cooperate with discovery and filing for counterclaims 

against Plaintiff’s counsel for a million dollars. Ultimately, the Court overruled the motion 

to enforce, reasoning that the newly formed entity was not a party to the settlement 

agreement, and urged Plaintiff to file a new lawsuit.2

The current case is that new suit. Plaintiff filed and was awarded a default judgment 

against Defendant. Plaintiff now seeks to conduct postjudgment discovery, but it has been 

frustrated by Defendant’s usual tactic of refusing to cooperate with discovery and making 

frivolous objections.

2. Procedural Background

Plaintiff served Charles Deckert (president of the MC), on August 16, 2022, with its 

written discovery by email (following the Court’s order granting substitute service, because

Mr. Deckert was evading service3). On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff received Mr. Deckert’s 

responses, replete with frivolous objections and minimal responsive materials. He provided 

Plaintiff only four documents he decided were responsive—one of them an email from 

2 See Doc. #37, 1:17-CV-1134-SS.

3 See Doc. #44.

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 2 of 7
Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 3 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

Plaintiff’s counsel.

While Mr. Deckert’s responses were grossly inadequate and the objections too 

numerous to go through line-by-line, they include—for instance—his refusal to produce 

bank statements he “personally” used for activities such as “revenues for the sale of 

merchandise.” Mr. Deckert objected that the request was harassing and that the 

information sought was equally available to Plaintiff. This, despite the fact that Mr. Deckert 

was personally manufacturing and selling infringing products, as well as products for the 

MC. This is but one example in responses replete with gross avoidance of discovery

obligations this Court warned Mr. Deckert he would have to faithfully respond to. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff files this opposed motion to overrule objections and compel discovery

and seeks its costs in connection therewith.

3. Argument

The federal discovery rules are dependent on the parties’ compliance to assure that 

cases are decided by the facts revealed rather than the facts concealed. The purpose of 

discovery is to narrow and clarify the issues, making trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff 

and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable 

extent.” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). Unfortunately, 

Mr. Deckert has refused to comply with those discovery obligations.

In response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Mr. Deckert has asserted improper 

“General Objections” and a raft of other boilerplate objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, 

and essentially refused to provide any substantive information. See Exhibit 1. In response 

to Plaintiff’s requests for production, Mr. Deckert has asserted improper objections, and the 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 3 of 7
Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 4 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

same rote response to each request––and refusing to provide responsive documents he has 

in his possession. While Mr. Deckert was content to be president of the MC, engage 

trademark counsel to attempt to file for infringing marks solely to antagonize Plaintiff, 

manufactured and sold items for the MC, etc.—he does not believe he needs to comply with 

Court-ordered discovery. In the event Mr. Deckert used his personal bank account to 

operate the MC, the discovery requests clearly state he should provide those records.

Plaintiff intended for his initial written discovery to provide “baseline” information

related to the collection of Plaintiff’s judgment against Defendant. However, Deckert’s

abusive behavior has prevented discovery from accomplishing those legitimate goals.

Improper General Objections, with Responses “Subject to” Said Objections

Mr. Deckert has also improperly asserted global qualifications and “general 

objections” to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production––including nonsensical

objections to Plaintiff’s definitions, repeat objections that discovery is “broad,” “merely 

calculated to annoy and harass [him],” and arguing that discovery has “in substance, been 

previously propounded” and that these discovery requests “constitute[] oppression.” These 

tactics are textbook examples of discovery abuse, and Mr. Deckert’s qualifications and 

objections should be overruled.

The use and incorporation of general objections “have long been disfavored by 

federal courts.” Gonzalez v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. A-14-CV-574-LY-ML, 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114376, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015) (citing Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 4 of 7
Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 5 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

F.R.D. 466, 483 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (collecting cases). 4 Such general objections “are 

considered mere ‘hypothetical or contingent possibilities’ where the objecting party makes 

‘no meaningful effort to show the application of any such theoretical objection to any 

request for discovery.’” Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 483 (citing Sonnino v. U. of Kan. Hosp. Auth., 

221 F.R.D. 661, 666–67 (D. Kan. 2004)). In accordance with the foregoing, Mr. Deckert’s

improper qualifications and “general objections” should be overruled and/or deemed 

waived.5

Improper Boilerplate Objections

In response to nearly each and every request, Mr. Deckert has asserted the exact 

same boilerplate objections of overbreadth, burdensomeness and proportionality.

“It is well-established that parties cannot make . . . boilerplate objections to discovery 

requests.” Star Creek Ctr., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68039, at *7 (citing Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 

483. “The party resisting discovery ‘must show specifically . . . how each [request] is not

relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.’” Id. (quoting 

McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, PC v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) 

(internal citations omitted). Moreover, “[a] party may not ‘refuse discovery simply by 

4 See also Robert K. Wise, Ending Evasive Responses to Written Discovery: A Guide for Properly Responding (and 

Objecting) to Interrogatories and Document Requests Under the Texas Discovery Rules, 65 Baylor L. Rev. 510, 

568 (Spring 2013):

These methodologies have three purposes—one nefarious and two benign. The nefarious purpose is 

pure gamesmanship—to hide damaging information or material behind a wall of objections. The 

benign purposes are to protect against the possibility that an answer might be found to be inadequate 

or that an objection has been waived. Both methodologies are improper.

5 See, e.g., Tillman v. Larpenter, No. 15-4588, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128738, at *4 (E.D. La. Sep. 21, 2016) 

(overruling general objections); Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114376, at *4(same); Sonnino, 221 F.R.D. 

at 67 (“this Court has deemed such ‘ostensible’ objections waived”); Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 

253 F.R.D. 354, 364 (D. Md. 2008) (same).

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 5 of 7
Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 6 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

making a boilerplate objection that it is not proportional.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1), advisory committee note (2015)).

In summary, Mr. Deckert’s cut-and-paste boilerplate objections are improper and 

should be deemed waived and/or overruled. Star Creek Ctr., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68039,

at *8–9; Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 488.

Plaintiff Requests Fees under the Rules

The federal rules provide that on a motion to compel, a court “must, after giving an 

opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the 

motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable 

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(5)(A). Where, as here, Mr. Deckert’s objections and responses were “evasive, 

obstructionist, and not substantially justified,” it is proper to award fees to the movant.

Eubank v. Lockhart Indep. Sch. Dist., No. A-15-CV-1019-RP-ML, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

194780, at *17 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2016).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff prays that the Court overrule or deem waived Mr. 

Deckert’s improper objections; Order Defendant to properly respond to the abovedescribed interrogatories and requests for production; and grant Plaintiff all other relief as 

to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled, including his reasonable and necessary attorney’s 

fees incurred in preparing this motion.

Dated February 21, 2023 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 6 of 7
Pipe Hitters Union, LLC v. Pipe Hitters Union MC, LLC Page 7 of 7

Opposed Motion to Overrule Objections & Compel Discovery Responses

Amini & Conant, LLP

/s/ Neema Amini

Neema Amini

Texas Bar No. 24068915

408 West11th Street, Fifth Floor

Austin, Texas 78701

t: (512) 222-6883

f: (512) 900-7967

neema@aminiconant.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Pipe Hitters Union, LLC

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on February 21, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all 

parties who have appeared in this action. 

/s/ Neema Amini

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 46 Filed 02/21/23 Page 7 of 7