| (a) Limitation of discovery requests. The presiding
officer may limit discovery, by order, to protect a party against
unreasonable or unwarranted discovery requests.
(1) The presiding officer may issue an order limiting
discovery requests for good cause, including the following purposes:
(A) Prevention of undue delay in the proceeding;
(B) Protection from a request to provide information
which is readily available to the requesting party at a reasonable
cost;
(C) Protection from unreasonably cumulative or duplicative
discovery requests; or
(D) Protection of a party or other person from undue
burden, unnecessary expense, harassment or annoyance, or invasion
of personal, constitutional, or property rights.
(2) Any person from whom discovery is sought may file
a motion for a protective order, specifying the grounds on which a
protective order is justified. Motions or responses must include affidavits,
discovery pleadings, or other pertinent documents to support the allegations
made therein.
(3) The presiding officer may order that:
(A) Specific discovery not be sought in whole or in
part, or that the extent or subject matter of discovery be limited,
or that it not be undertaken at the time or place specified;
(B) Discovery be undertaken only by such method or
upon such terms and conditions or at the time and place directed by
the presiding officer;
(C) For good cause shown, results of discovery be sealed
or otherwise adequately protected, that its distribution be limited,
or that its disclosure be restricted;
(D) Information or material be protected by any means
consistent with the intent of this chapter; or
(E) Information or material be protected in the interest
of justice if necessary to protect the party from undue burden, unnecessary
expense, harassment or annoyance, or invasion of personal, constitutional,
or property rights.
(4) The presiding officer may limit requests for information
(RFIs) as set out in subsection (d) of this section.
(b) Denial of right to discovery requests. The presiding
officer may deny a party the right to continue discovery, by order,
upon proof and a finding that the party abused the discovery process.
(c) Protection of confidential or proprietary information.
The presiding officer may issue a protective order governing the production
of confidential or proprietary information as is appropriate in each
proceeding before the commission. The order must be in the form adopted
by the commission as the standard protective order. In addition, the
parties may enter into agreements regarding protection of confidential
or proprietary information. Entry of a protective order is not a determination
that any documents produced under the protective order are proprietary
or confidential.
(d) Limitations on requests for information.
(1) Before setting limitations on RFIs, the presiding
officer must consider the factors set out in subparagraphs (A)-(K)
of this paragraph.
(A) The type of proceeding.
(B) The number and complexity of the issues in the
proceeding.
(C) The cost of alternative forms of discovery for
the party seeking discovery.
(D) The comprehensiveness of the information provided
in the application.
(E) Any material deficiencies in the application.
(F) The number of issues that the party seeking discovery
is expected to address.
(G) The novelty of the issues in the proceeding.
(H) The number of answers required by requests, including
subparts, propounded in similar proceedings.
(I) Whether the number of questions is limited in other
forms of discovery.
(J) Whether the hearing on the merits will be shortened
by virtue of questions that are answered.
(K) Any jurisdictional deadlines.
(2) For purposes of calculating the number of RFIs,
each answer is considered a separate request for information.
(3) If a party is not required to answer a question,
that question may not be included in the calculation of whether the
propounding party has reached its limit. However, if the presiding
officer determines that a party is intentionally propounding frivolous,
irrelevant, or otherwise objectionable requests, the question will
be included in the calculation of a propounding party's limit.
(4) To discourage duplicate RFIs, any party that does
not use its entire allotment of RFIs directed toward another party
may transfer, by written notice to the presiding officer, that portion
of its allotment to any other party in the proceeding. The requirements
of this paragraph do not apply to RFIs originating from commission
staff or directed to commission staff.
(5) The presiding officer may use discretion in determining
whether to limit the number of RFIs that may be propounded upon commission
staff or the Office of Public Utility Counsel by another party. In
making this determination, the presiding officer must consider the
limited resources available to each agency, and specifically that
commission staff is required by law to represent the public interest
in all proceedings before the commission.
(6) The presiding officer may limit or expand the number
of RFIs that commission staff may propound upon any other party, and
must consider that commission staff is required by law to represent
the public interest in all proceedings before the commission, and
thus may require more questions than other parties to ensure that
it adequately explores all of the issues presented in the case.
|
| Source Note: The provisions of this §22.142 adopted to be effective November 1, 1993, 18 TexReg 6641; amended to be effective October 4, 1996, 21 TexReg 9159; amended to be effective August 13, 1998, 23 TexReg 8038; amended to be effective July 19, 2023, 48 TexReg 3899 |
