In the case In re Ex Parte Application of Xiaomi Tech. Netherlands B.V., No. 4:25-mc-13 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2025), Texas District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, finding that “Celerity waived its objections by qualifying its response with ‘subject to’ language” and that “Celerity waived its objections by relying on general or boilerplate language” (among other rulings), granted in part Xiaomi’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

The dispute originated after the Court granted Xiaomi’s ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, authorizing Xiaomi to issue subpoenas to Celerity for documents and testimony relevant to the German proceedings. Celerity responded not by producing documents, but by asserting sweeping objections and stating that it did not “presently intend to produce documents” in response to any of the ten requests for production. Xiaomi moved to compel, citing urgent deadlines in the German litigation and arguing that Celerity’s objections were meritless and dilatory.

At the outset, Judge Mazzant emphasized that once a § 1782 application is granted, “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery apply,” and non-parties are not exempt from those obligations. The Court found that Celerity had waived most of its objections in two fundamental ways: first, by qualifying its responses with “subject to” language, and second, by relying almost entirely on general or boilerplate language. Judge Mazzant described the use of “subject to” objections as “manifestly confusing (at best) and misleading (at worse),” explaining that such language “leaves the requesting [p]arty uncertain as to whether the question has actually been fully answered,” and makes it “impossible for [Xiaomi] or the Court to assess the sufficiency of the response.” By using this formulation, Celerity “waived each objection”.

Judge Mazzant was equally critical of Celerity’s privilege assertions. In response to every request, Celerity objected “to the extent” that materials might be protected by attorney-client privilege, work product, or “any other applicable privilege,” without identifying specific documents or providing a privilege log. This approach, Judge Mazzant held, “covers none” of the required ground, because merely naming privileges “does not affirmatively assert or identify” them. Under the Federal Rules, a party must describe withheld materials “in a manner that…will enable the parties to assess the claim,” and “[f]ailure to do so results in waiver of the privilege or protection.” Because Celerity failed to provide a privilege log or substantiate its claims, Judge Mazzant held that it had waived privilege and work-product protection, although it declined to order production of privileged materials given Xiaomi’s representation that it did not seek them.

Celerity’s proportionality, undue burden, and overbreadth objections were also waived. While acknowledging that non-party status is relevant, Judge Mazzant stressed that a non-party still bears the burden of demonstrating undue burden with evidence. Here, Celerity offered only conclusory assertions, unsupported by affidavits or proof. As Judge Mazzant explained, “a non-party cannot rely on a mere assertion that compliance would be burdensome and onerous without showing the manner and extent of the burden.” Absent such a showing, these objections were “nothing more than unsustainable boilerplate” and therefore waived.

Judge Mazzant also rejected Celerity’s confidentiality objections, reiterating that “confidentiality does not act as a per se bar to disclosure or constitute grounds to withhold documents from discovery.” While acknowledging that some responsive materials may be proprietary, Judge Mazzant noted that the proper remedy is a protective order, not wholesale refusal to produce. He also expressed skepticism about Celerity’s claim that heightened protection was required simply because documents would be used in foreign litigation, observing that § 1782 discovery “by its very nature…is for use in foreign litigation.” Nonetheless, Judge Mazzant required that production be conditioned on an agreed protective order and strongly encouraged the parties to negotiate one without further court intervention.

After addressing waiver, Judge Mazzant independently analyzed whether the requests were facially overbroad. While most requests were upheld, he exercised its discretion to narrow several of them. For example, he limited requests seeking information about all ASUS patents to those specifically related to the patent-in-suit and trimmed requests that extended beyond what was necessary to support Xiaomi’s defenses in the German case. Judge Mazzant emphasized that these limitations were imposed “not because Celerity carried its burden,” but because he found certain requests overly broad on their face.

Celerity also argued that Xiaomi’s motion was premature and that the parties were not at an impasse. Judge Mazzant flatly rejected this contention, pointing out that Celerity repeatedly stated it did not intend to produce any documents. Judge Mazzant held that producing nothing in response to discovery – without a privilege log or a motion for protective order – is “not an option,” and characterized Celerity’s conduct as a “clear attempt to delay and deny” discovery. Given the impending German deadlines, Judge Mazzant ordered Celerity to comply with the document subpoena within seven days and warned that extensions would not be granted absent agreement of the parties.

Finally, Judge Mazzant modified the subpoenas to ensure compliance with Rule 45’s geographic limits, designating Plano, Texas (Celerity’s principal place of business) as the proper place of compliance and clarifying that electronic production would suffice. He also compelled Celerity to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness within fourteen days, while cautioning that further boilerplate objections would not be well received.

So, what do you think? Are you surprised we’re still seeing objections with general or boilerplate language more than ten years after the 2015 rules changes? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.