Order denying the motion to expedite discovery (Dkt. 22)¶

Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 23 · 2025-12-29 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV

Document 23

Filed 12/29/25

Page 1 of 2

PageID 311

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
KEVINN. BASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 5:25-CV-244-H-BV

ORDER DENYING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Within his amended complaint, prose Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass refers to expedited
discove1y under Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 14 at 13. 1
The Court liberally construes Bass's reference as a motion seeking expedited discove1y in
connection with his request for preliminaiy injunction. See id. at 18-19. For the reasons
below, the Court DENIES the motion.
The federal rules do not delineate a standard for expedited discovery. Fiduciary
Network, LLC v. Buehler, No. 3:15-cv-0808, 2015 WL I 1120985, at *I (N.D. Tex. Mar.
23, 2015). Courts typically consider requests for expedited discovery under a good-cause
standard, weighing "( 1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of
the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the
burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the

1 Page citations to Bass's filings refer to the electronic page number assigned by the Court's electronic
filing system.

Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV

Document 23

Filed 12/29/25

Page 2 of 2

PageID 312

typical discovery process the request was made." Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Bass has not shown good cause. Bass's request for preliminary injunction is under
consideration, and Bass does not explain how expediated discovery would assist the
Court and the parties in evaluating the merits of the preliminary injunction. Talon
Transaction Techs. , Inc. v. Stoneeagle Servs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-902-P, 2013 WL
12172925, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 14, 2013) (explaining that courts may grant expedited
discovery when it "would better enable the [c]ourt to judge the parties' interests and
respective chances for success on the merits at a preliminary injunction hearing" (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Additionally, Bass has not filed the proposed discovery requests, so the Court
cannot evaluate their breadth. Nor can the Court determine the burden the discovery
might impose on Defendants. These factors weigh against expedited discovery. E.g.,
EHO360, LLC v. Opalich, 3:21-CV-0724-B, 2021 WL 10428788, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June
25, 2021) ( denying expedited discove1y in part because plaintiff did not narrowly tailor
discovery requests, so they would burden defendants).
In sum, Bass has not shown good cause for expedited discovery, so the Court

DENIES the request.
SO ORDERED on December :)..4 , 2025.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2