33rd / 424th District Courts

Texaco v. Hon. John Dominquez (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1991) precludes allowing P to "rummage" D's files merely because P believes the culling of responsive materials by counsel for D may not have uncovered everything that should have been produced. In spite of acknowledging P's frustration, the court spoke directly to the "no fishing expedition" concepts of modern discovery.

However, it also dealt with a trial court order for D (Texaco) to provide "a more responsive answer" to certain requests for production. The order did not specify how D must be more responsive. The court then, in this case involving a large number (100,000) of documents, stated:
"We do not find it unreasonable for the trial court, in an effort to clarify discovery and meet the purposes of discovery (to try cases based on what the facts reveal, not what they conceal), to order the party producing the documents, and who is most familiar with them, to identify which documents satisfy which request. Further, Texaco offered no proof to the trial court that the documents, as provided to plaintiffs, were as kept in the usual course of business."

See TRCP Rule 167(1)(f)