*1 Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Lloyds's (“State Farm”) Motion to Compel Design Roofing & General Contractors, LLC to Respond to Defendant's Deposition by Written Questions, (Dkt. 20), and Motion to Compel and Enforce Subpoena against TBM Public Adjusters, LLC, (Dkt. 21). The Court ordered non-parties Design Roofing & General Contractors, LLC (“DRGC”) and TBM Public Adjusters, LLC (“TBM”) to respond to State Farm's motions to compel on or before June 28, 2024. (Dkts. 23, 24; see also Return Receipts, Dkts. 28, 29). Neither DRGC nor TBM has filed a response. Having reviewed the motions to compel, the record, and the relevant law, the Court will grant them.

The scope of discovery is broad. Crosby v. La. Health Serv. and Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that, unless otherwise limited by court order, 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, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “A discovery request is relevant when the request seeks admissible evidence or ‘is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” Crosby, 647 F.3d at 262 (quoting Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., 392 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir. 2004)). A party seeking discovery may file a motion to compel after conferring in good faith to secure that discovery without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). If the motion is filed and granted, the Court must order the resisting party to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

“Once a party moving to compel discovery establishes that the materials and information it seeks are relevant or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the burden rests upon the party resisting discovery to substantiate its objections.” Hobbs v. Petroplex Pipe & Constr., Inc., No. MO:17-CV-00030-DC, 2018 WL 3603074, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2018); see also McLeod, Alexander, Powel and Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990). “A party objecting to discovery must state with specificity the objection and how it relates to the particular request being opposed, and not merely that it is overly broad and burdensome or oppressive or vexatious or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.; see also Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 469 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (stating that the party resisting discovery has the burden to “specifically object”) (citing McLeod, 894 F.2d at 1485).

This case arises out of State Farm's handling of a homeowner's insurance claim for alleged damages caused by a storm in March 2021. (Mot. Compel, Dkt. 20, ¶ 1). Plaintiff David Espinoza (“Plaintiff”) brings claims against State Farm for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. (Id.). In its motion to compel, State Farm represents that DRGC “has been identified by Plaintiff as an individual likely to have discoverable information.” (Id. ¶ 2). Before Plaintiff filed this suit, DRGC “inspected the property and provided an estimate of alleged damage to the property.” (Id.). On December 26, 2023, State Farm issued a subpoena requesting a deposition by written questions and production of certain records from DRGC. (Id. ¶ 3; Subpoena, Dkt. 20-1, at 9–13). The subpoena was immediately served on all counsel of record, (Mot. Compel, Dkt. 20, ¶ 3), and served on DRCG on April 18, 2024 via hand delivery to DRGC's agent, David Evans, (Id. ¶ 4 (citing Aff. Service, Dkt. 20-1, at 17)). To date, DRGC has not responded to State Farm's subpoena for a deposition by written questions and production of records. (Id. ¶ 4). State Farm states that “[n]o objections have been made ..., no protective order sought, and no cross-questions have been served.” (Id. ¶ 5). State Farm further states that it has made “numerous attempts” to directly reach DRGC to discuss the subpoena and has also conferred with Plaintiff's counsel in an attempt to receive a response from DRGC. (Id. ¶ 7). As DRGC failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to State Farm's motion to compel, (Order, Dkt. 23), and has not opposed the motion to compel, the Court will grant State Farm's motion as unopposed. See Loc. R. W.D. Tex. CV-7(e)(2) (requiring an opposing party to respond to a nondispositive motion within 7 days and allowing the district court to grant a motion as unopposed if no timely response is filed).

*2 Similarly, State Farm represents that TBM has also failed to object or respond to a subpoena for a deposition by written questions and for the production of records. (Mot. Compel, Dkt. 21). Prior to filing this suit, Plaintiff “retained licensed public adjuster Tyler Mishoulam of [TBM].” (Id. ¶ 2). Plaintiff has identified Mishoulam as both an individual likely to have discoverable information and a non-retained expert witness in this case. (Id. ¶ 2). State Farm states that TBM, by and through Mishoulam, inspected the property and provided an estimate of alleged damage. (Id.). On December 28, 2023, State Farm issued a subpoena requesting a deposition by written questions and production of certain records from TBM. (Id. ¶ 3 (citing Subpoena, Dkt. 21-1, at 121–26)). The subpoena was immediately served on all counsel of record, (Mot. Compel, Dkt. 21, ¶ 3), and served on TBM on April 19, 2024 via hand delivery to Mishoulam, TBM's managing member, (Id. ¶ 4 (citing Aff. Service, Dkt. 21-1, at 133)). State Farm states that “[n]o objections have been made ..., no protective order sought, and no cross-questions have been served.” (Id. ¶ 5). State Farm further states that it has made “numerous attempts” to directly reach TBM to discuss the subpoena and has also conferred with Plaintiff's counsel in an attempt to receive a response from TBM. (Id. ¶ 7). As TBM failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to State Farm's motion to compel, (Order, Dkt. 24), and has not opposed the motion to compel, the Court will grant State Farm's motion as unopposed. See Loc. R. W.D. Tex. CV-7(e)(2) (requiring an opposing party to respond to a nondispositive motion within 7 days and allowing the district court to grant a motion as unopposed if no timely response is filed).

For these reasons, Defendant State Farm Lloyds's Motions to Compel, (Dkts. 20, 21), are GRANTED as unopposed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Design Roofing & General Contractors, LLC fully respond to State Farm's deposition by written questions and requests for production on or before July 30, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TBM Public Adjusters, LLC fully respond to State Farm's deposition by written questions and requests for production on or before July 30, 2024.

IT IS FINALLY ORDEREED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this order to DRGC and TBM via certified mail to the following addresses:

SIGNED on July 2, 2024.