United States District Court 

Northern District of Texas 

Amarillo Division 

STATE OF TEXAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of Homeland 

Security, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00094

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 

Defendants respectfully move to compel responses to discovery requests 

they served on Plaintiff, the State of Texas, as part of this litigation. The 

parties have repeatedly moved to extend the deadline for jurisdictional 

discovery in this matter to allow time to complete the outstanding discovery. 

The Court most recently extended the deadline for jurisdictional discovery to 

August 4, 2023, but indicated that further extension requests must be 

supported by circumstances other than those raised in prior extension 

requests. The parties have conferred and Texas has represented that they plan 

to provide responses. However, in an abundance of caution given the upcoming 

deadline and the Court’s indication that further extensions will require some 

new good cause, Defendants move to compel responses to the outstanding 

discovery in this matter. If the parties are able to resolve the outstanding 

issues with respect to discovery without intervention of the Court while this 

motion is pending, Defendants will notify the Court. 

BACKGROUND 

Texas filed this suit on April 28, 2022, to challenge an Interim Final 

Rule governing consideration of asylum claims by asylum officers. ECF No. 1. 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 93 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 860
2 

Defendants subsequently requested that the Court provide time for 

Defendants to conduct jurisdictional discovery to test Texas’s speculative 

allegations of harm from the rule before briefing Plaintiffs’ standing to bring 

this case. ECF No. 59 at 4-7. On May 31, 2022, the Court entered a scheduling 

order setting a deadline for the administrative record and a time period for 

“jurisdictional discovery into Texas’s alleged injuries and standing to sue,” and 

stayed further briefing during that discovery period. ECF No. 60. 

On June 7, 2022, Defendants served Texas with a notice for depositions 

under Rule 30(b)(6). See Ex. A. On June 10, 2022, Defendants served Texas 

with a set of requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for 

admission. See Ex. B. The Court then granted the parties’ request for 

additional time to complete discovery, ECF No. 65, and following Texas’s 

withdrawal of its motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court reset and 

further extended the period of jurisdictional discovery, ECF No. 72. 

The parties then sought additional extensions to complete discovery. 

See ECF Nos. 79, 81, 83, 85, 87. During this time, Texas produced some 

documents but never provided written responses to Defendants’ requests for 

production identifying (1) what documents correspond to what requests, 

(2) whether any documents were withheld based on any objection or privilege, 

or (3) whether Texas’s search for responsive documents was complete. Texas 

also never responded to Defendants’ interrogatories or requests for admission 

served in June 2022. And Defendants have been unable to complete the 

depositions that were noticed in June 2022 because, as Defendants have 

consistently communicated to Texas, Defendants need to see Texas’s complete 

responses to the requests for production and interrogatories before knowing 

the extent of depositions that will be necessary. 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 93 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 861
3 

ARGUMENT 

 Defendants respectfully move for an order requiring Texas to provide 

responses to Defendants’ interrogatories, and written responses to Defendants 

requests for production identifying what documents correspond to what 

requests, whether any documents were withheld based on any objection or 

privilege, and detailing whether Texas’s search for responsive documents is 

complete. Defendants request that Texas provide those responses on a timeline 

that allows Defendants a reasonable amount of time to review the responses 

and to schedule and conduct any of the previously noticed depositions that 

Defendants deem still necessary after reviewing Texas’s complete response to 

Defendants’ written discovery requests. Texas previously identified a number 

of different witnesses that would be necessary to cover the topics identified in 

Defendants’ deposition notice, so it is possible that time for multiple 

depositions will be necessary.1

 Under Rule 37, “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or 

discovery,” including where the opposing “party fails to answer an 

interrogatory submitted under Rule 33,” fails to respond to requests for 

production under Rule 34, or fails to designate a witness or answer questions 

at a deposition, including under Rule 30(b)(6). Fed R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), (a)(3)(iiv). A party may thus move for production of materials and information that is 

within the scope of discovery and that has been requested but not received. 

See, e.g., Crosswhite v. Lexington Ins. Co., 321 Fed. App’x. 365, 368 (5th Cir. 

1 Texas also failed to respond to Defendants’ Requests for Admission, but requests for 

admission are deemed admitted by operation of law in circumstances like this when the 

responding party fails to respond within the designated time. Rule 36(a)(3) provides: 

“Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days 

after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting 

party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its 

attorney.” See also, e.g., Hernandez v. Smith, 793 F. App’x 261, 266 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 93 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 862
4 

2009); Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 574 (N.D. Tex. 2018). Texas 

has not raised any objections to Defendants’ interrogatories, requests for 

production, or deposition notice in the year these requests have been pending, 

so the only issue at this point appears to be timing of Texas’s responses and 

the opportunity to conduct depositions if necessary before discovery closes. 

 The parties conferred on the outstanding requests for production, 

interrogatories, and deposition notice, and counsel for Texas indicated that 

Texas intends to provide responses to the requests for production and 

interrogatories, and identify witnesses. However, given the limited time 

remaining in the discovery period to complete this discovery, the difficulties 

that might arise in scheduling depositions in the limited time that remains, 

and the Court’s indication that additional good cause will be required for 

further extensions, Defendants respectfully move for an order compelling 

responses to the requests for production and interrogatories on a timeline that 

will allow a reasonable amount of time for Defendants to receive and review 

the discovery responses before completing any necessary depositions. 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 93 Filed 07/12/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 863
5 

Dated: July 12, 2023. Respectfully submitted, 

 BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General 

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY 

Director 

Office of Immigration Litigation 

District Court Section 

EREZ REUVENI

Assistant Director 

/s/ Brian C. Ward 

BRIAN C. WARD

Senior Litigation Counsel 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Division 

Office of Immigration Litigation 

District Court Section 

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, DC 20044 

Tel.: (202) 616-9121 

brian.c.ward@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Defendants

Certificate of Conferences 

I certify that on July 10, 2023, the parties conferred on this motion. 

Counsel for Texas indicated that they intend to provide responses to the 

outstanding discovery requests on which this motion is based. 

/s/ Brian C. Ward 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 93 Filed 07/12/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 864
6 

Certificate of Service 

I certify that on July 12, 2023, I filed this document through the Court’s 

EM/ECF system, which serves it upon all counsel of record. 

/s/ Brian C. Ward 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 93 Filed 07/12/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 865