Spectrum WT v. Wendler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
SPECTRUM WT,
Plaintiff,
v. 2:23-CV-048-Z
WALTER WENDLER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Spectrum WT’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Interrogatories and the Production of Documents (“Motion”), filed November 14, 2025. ECF
No. 130. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1) explains that parties “may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case.” The scope of discovery is broad. See United States
v. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-022, 2022 WL 19010334, at *2 (N.D.
Tex. Aug. 25, 2022). Indeed, Rule 26’s only limitations are that discovery requests need to be
“(1) relevant to a claim or defense in the case; and (2) proportional to the needs of the case.”
Id. The threshold for relevance at the discovery stage is distinctly lower than the threshold
for admissibility at trial. See Rangel v. Gonzalez Mascorro, 274 F.R.D. 585, 590 (S.D. Tex.
2011) (citations omitted). At this stage, relevance is construed broadly enough to include any
“matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any
issue that is or may be in the case.” Jd. (internal marks omitted). Thus, discovery should be
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 10 PageID <pageID>

allowed unless “the information sought can have no possible bearing on the claim or defense
of a party.” Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467, 470 (N.D. Tex. 2005).
If a party fails to produce documents or answer an interrogatory under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, then Rule 37(a)(8)(B) allows the other party to “move for an
order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” FED. R. CIv. P.
37(a)(3)(B). The party resisting the compulsion “must show specifically how each discovery
request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable.” Areizaga v. ADW Corp., 314 F.R.D. 428,
434 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (citing McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d
1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990)). An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must
be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” FED. R. CIV. P. 87(a)(4). Similarly,
“[s]erving unsupported and boilerplate or stock objections does not preserve or accomplish
anything other than waiver and subjecting the responding party to sanctions.” Lopez v. Don
Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 582 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
However, courts should protect a resisting party if “the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is
more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Even
though discovery is broad, and a resisting party bears the burden of proof to avoid court
compulsion, Rule 26 “has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and
speculative fishing expedition.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151,
1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests
the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly.”)).
ANALYSIS
Broadly speaking, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief. First, Plaintiff asks the Court to
compel Defendants to produce additional documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 10 PageID <pageID>

34. Plaintiff also asks the Court to compel amended responses to interrogatories under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.
I. Requests for Production
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce several types of documents by
November 26. The Court will address each of Plaintiffs arguments in turn.
A. Second Record Search
Plaintiff first contends that “[a]lthough Defendants’ rolling production has produced
only a handful of documents, Plaintiff has evidence that Defendants’ search has been
inadequate.” ECF No. 180 at 116. Plaintiff accordingly asks the Court to “order Defendants
to conduct an adequate search and disclose steps taken to locate responsive records.” Id.
“As a general matter, it is not the court’s role to dictate how a party should search for
relevant information absent a showing that the party has abdicated its responsibility.”
VeroBlue Farms USA Ine. v. Wulf, 345 F.R.D. 406, 420 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (citation modified).
To make this showing, the moving party must point to a “specific or material deficiency in
the other party’s production” that “allows the Court to make ‘a reasonable deduction that
other documents may exist or did exist and have been destroyed’ or must ‘point to the
existence of additional responsive material.” Id. (quoting Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D. 27,
29, 31 (D.D.C. 2008)).
Plaintiff offers three alleged deficiencies. The first is that in response to Request for
Production No. 16, Defendant Wendler “stated he ‘conducted a diligent search and has no’
communications with David Rejino, the Texas A&M University System Assistant Vice
Chancellor for Governmental Relations, concerning drag shows.” ECF No. 130 at 16.
However, “before this litigation began, Plaintiffs counsel obtained records from West Texas
A&M University in response to a public records request. Among these was an email from
Wendler alerting Rejino to the drag ban.” Id. Plaintiff's second example focuses on Defendant
3
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID <pageID>

Wendler’s response to Request for Production No. 15, which asked Wendler to “[p]roduce all
communications to or from” a major donor to West Texas A&M University initiatives. Id. at
17; ECF No. 131 at 42. Defendant Wendler responded that he “has conducted a diligent
search and has no documents that are responsive to this request,” even as Plaintiff directs
the Court to a March 2023 email exchange between Wendler and the donor about Plaintiffs
planned drag show. ECF No. 131 at 42, 160. Plaintiff also asks the Court to consider “the
sparse nature of Defendants’ production of 165 documents” to be “itself evidence of
Defendants’ inadequate production.” ECF No. 180 at 18. Plaintiff compares these 165
documents with a 2023 television interview in which Defendant Wendler stated that he had
received “two thousand emails” about the drag show and that he had “catalogued” each of
these emails. Jd. Plaintiff states that it requested these emails, but claims that Defendants
have so far failed to produce them.
Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of the type of “specific or material deficiency”
in Defendants’ production that warrants requiring a new document search. Defendants are
therefore ORDERED to perform a second, more thorough record search and to provide
Plaintiff and the Court with a sworn declaration as to the search methodology used to carry
out that search. However, Defendants may still rely on applicable privileges and other
defenses to exempt information from this search, such as donors’ right to anonymity under
certain conditions.
B. Privilege Log
Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ failure to produce a privilege log “violates Rule
26’s requirement that if a party ‘withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming
that the information is privileged,’ it must do more than make that claim, but must also
‘describe the nature of the withheld information ‘in a manner that... will enable other
parties to assess the claim.” ECF No. 130 at 14-15 (quoting FED. R. CIv. P. 26(b)(5)(A)).
4
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 10 PageID <pageID>

Privilege logs are useful because they require the party resisting production to
specifically “identify each document and provide basic information, including the author,
recipient, date and general nature of the document.” Jolivet v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 340
F.R.D. 7, 21 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (quoting S.E.C. v. Thrasher, No. 92-6987, 1996 WL 125661, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 1996)). This log can be organized either “categorically” or “document-by-
document.” Id. (citing Mfrs. Collection Co., LLC v. Precision Airmotive, LLC, No. 3:12-CV-
853, 2014 WL 2558888, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2014)). Regardless of how it is organized,
“the log must still provide information needed to evaluate claims of privilege, including the
category, date range, authors and recipients, privilege asserted, and representations that the
materials fall within the scope of the privilege.” Id. (quoting EPAC Techs., Inc. v.
HarperCollins Christian Publ’g, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00463, 2018 WL 3628890, at *1 (M.D.
Tenn. Mar. 29, 2018)). This is because without this information, courts cannot adequately
assess a party’s claim to privilege.
At the other end of the spectrum are recycled, stock objections that do not specifically
identify why the party resisting production believes a document is privileged. These are
especially disfavored. See Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 578 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
(“General or boilerplate objections are invalid, and objections to discovery must be made with
specificity, and the responding party has the obligation to explain and support its objections.”
(citing OrchestrateHR, Inc. v. Trombetta, 178 F.Supp.3d 476, 507 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (citation
modified))). Defendants served many such objections here. For example, in response to
Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos. 5 and 6, respectively, Defendants lodged the following
nearly identical objections:
Defendant incorporates by reference the recurring objections described above.
Defendant objects to this request because it calls for the production of
documents subject to attorney-client, attorney work product, or deliberative
process privilege or protected from disclosure by Texas Government Code §
323.017, which are therefore privileged under Federal Rule of Evidence 501.
5
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 10 PageID <pageID>

In particular, “all documents” would necessarily include documents on
fulfilling Defendant’s legal obligations and internal deliberations on how best
to implement policies in compliance with the law.
Defendant incorporates by reference the recurring objections described above.
Defendant objects to this request because it calls for the production of
documents and communications subject to the attorney-client, attorney work
product, or deliberative process privileges or protected from disclosure by
Texas Government Code § 323.017, which are therefore privileged under
Federal Rule of Evidence 501. In particular, “documents and communications”
would necessarily include documents and communications on fulfilling
Defendant’s legal obligations and internal deliberations on how best to
implement its policies in compliance with the law.
ECF No. 131 at 77-78. Defendants served these stock objections even though some of the
information Plaintiff seeks is plainly relevant to this case. For example, as Plaintiff notes,
“information pertaining to Wendler’s involvement in cancelling other events on campus—for
example, his cancellation of a rap performance due to its anticipated lyrics—is relevant in
evaluating how Defendants decide what expression is offensive.” ECF No. 130 at 20 (citing
ECF No. 131 at 109 (discussing Defendant Wendler’s cancelation of “a ‘rap’ or ‘hip-hop’
performance because he ‘understood the group’s concerts, performances and/or recordings to
advocate or describe gun violence’ or might ‘employ lyrics that are misogynistic”)).
The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion as to its request for a privilege log
and ORDERS Defendants to produce a privilege log or similar document that specifically
identifies the privilege or privileges they are relying on to withhold each document. The
generic responses Defendants previously served will not do.
C. Legislative, Anticipation of Litigation, and Deliberative Process Privileges
Plaintiff notes that in response to “[rJequests unrelated to any legislation, Defendants
invoke the statutory legislative privilege which protects only communications ‘between’
legislative officials.” ECF No. 180 at 19 (quoting TEX. GOV'T CODE § 323.017 (emphasis in
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 6 of 10 PageID <pageID>

original)). Plaintiff contends that because “neither Defendant is a lawmaker,” this privilege
should not apply.
Section 323.017(a) provides:
Communications, including conversations, correspondence, and electronic
communications, between a member of the legislature or the lieutenant
governor, an officer of the house or senate, a legislative agency, office, or
committee, or a member of the staff of any of those officers or entities and an
assistant or employee of the council that relate to a request by the officer or
entity for information, advice, or opinions from an assistant or employee of the
council are confidential and subject to legislative privilege.
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 323.017(a). This provision plainly protects only communications where at
least one party is a “member of the legislature” or an individual employed in some capacity
by the Texas Legislature. Jd. More than this, it seems to protect only communications
between those individuals “and an assistant or employee of the [Texas Legislative] [C]ouncil
that relate to a request” for the advice or opinions of the Council. Id.! As Plaintiff points out,
neither Defendant Wendler nor Defendant Thomas meet this definition. Accordingly, Section
323.017 seems to protect neither Defendant’s communications with non-legislative parties.
Defendants also invoke broad “anticipation of litigation” and “deliberative process”
privileges. Neither appears to apply to much of the information Plaintiff seeks. For example,
many of Defendants’ responses to requests for production incorporate by reference several
“recurring objections.” Several of those recurring objections take issue with Plaintiffs
requests “to the extent that [Plaintiff] seeks information that was prepared for or in
anticipation of litigation, constitutes attorney work product, [or] contains attorney-client
privileged communications.” ECF No. 131 at 31-32. Of course, Defendants may withhold
1 See also Confidentiality Policy, TEX. LEGIS. COUNCIL (last visited Nov. 19, 2025),
https://tlc.texas.gov/confidentiality (“Under Section 323.017, Government Code, communications
between a member of the legislature or the lieutenant governor and a council employee that relate to
a request by the official for information, advice, or opinions from a council employee are
confidential . . . .”).
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 7 of 10 PageID <pageID>

information that is in fact protected by these and other applicable privileges. But they may
not rely on abstract “anticipation of litigation” or “deliberative process” privileges to shield
relevant information from production. Going forward, Defendants must specifically identify
any information they believe to be actually protected by these and other privileges and
articulate the precise way in which they believe the privilege applies.
D. Deadline for Production
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to “complete their production by
November 26.” ECF No. 130 at 15. Pointing to Rule 34’s “specified time” requirement,
Plaintiff contends that the Court should compel Defendants to “provide further responses
committing to complete their production by November 26, produce their documents by that
date, and permit Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to evaluate the production and move to
compel further responses if necessary.” Id. at 9-10. Otherwise, Plaintiff argues, little time
will remain “to evaluate those documents before the summary judgment, pre-trial
submission, and trial deadlines.” Jd. at 10.
Plaintiff rightly notes that Rule 34 requires parties to specify the “end dates” for
document production. FED. R. CIv. P. 34(b)(2)(B) advisory committee’s note to 2015
amendment; see also Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC v. Varsity Spirit, LLC,
No. 2:23-CV-155-Z, 2024 WL 4895882, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2024) (Kacsmaryk, J.) (citing
Torsh, Inc. v. Audio Enhancement, Inc., No. 22-2862, 2023 WL 7688583, at *14 (E.D. La. Nov.
15, 2023)). November 26, however, is only a week away. It is also the day before
Thanksgiving, when counsel may be traveling to visit friends and family.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion as to Plaintiffs requested deadline
for production. However, Defendants are ORDERED to complete their rolling production on
or before Monday, December 1, 2025. This date will allow for nearly three weeks between
Defendants’ deadline for production and the close of discovery on December 19.
8
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 8 of 10 PageID <pageID>

II. Responses to Interrogatories
Separately, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wendler’s responses to interrogatories
have so far been “woefully deficient.” ECF No. 130 at 26. Plaintiff contends that “Wendler’s
responses do not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 because he broadly identifies
hundreds of policies across multiple university campuses rather than identifying the facts
and policies he contends justify his unilateral decision.” Jd. at 27. And his “evasive responses
are all the more improper,” Plaintiff continues, “because the Court identified these specific
questions, including the application of policies to drag performances, as central to this case.
And rightly so.” Id. (citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) permits a party to produce business records in
response to an interrogatory, but only where “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the
answer will be substantially the same for either party.” FED. R. CIv. P. 33(b). And the
responding party must “specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to
enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party
could.” Id. It is not enough to simply direct the party making the interrogatory to large,
unspecific categories of evidence, as Defendant Wendler has done so far. See, e.g., ECF No.
131 at 112 (‘President Wendler considered A&M System policies and regulations, as well as
WTAMU rules and procedures. Defendant is providing a copy of the WT Student Handbook,
Campus Organizations Handbook, JBK Student Center Policies Manual, JBK Procedures
and Guidelines, and other documents.” (citation modified)).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to provide complete, specific responses
to Interrogatories 1-2, 4-8, and 14 on or before December 1, 2025. These responses must
be signed and verified under oath, as Rule 33(b) requires. FED. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(8), (5) (“Each
interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 9 of 10 PageID <pageID>

attorney who objects must sign any objections.”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Defendants are ORDERED to complete production on or before December 1, 2025.
Defendants are further ORDERED to provide amended responses to Interrogatories 1-2, 4—
8, and 14 on or before December 1, 2025.
SO ORDERED.
November £9, 2025 Mh ma
MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
writing under oath. ... [and the] person who makes the answers must sign them, and the
|
10
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 132 Filed 11/19/25 Page 10 of 10 PageID <pageID>