MMA Law Firm, PLLC obtained a significant procedural victory in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case when the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas overruled all objections to a Rule 2004 examination of The Monson Law Firm, LLC, rejecting arguments that the discovery request violated First Amendment rights and misused bankruptcy procedures to circumvent defamation lawsuit requirements.
Chief Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez issued a memorandum opinion on February 5, 2026, ordering the representative of The Monson Law Firm to appear for examination on February 26, 2026, and directing the firm to produce extensive categories of documents by February 19, 2026. The ruling addresses what the court characterized as a matter of first impression regarding whether a debtor can use Rule 2004 discovery powers to investigate alleged defamatory statements made about the debtor during its bankruptcy case.
Background of the Dispute
The discovery dispute arose after MMA Law Firm issued a Notice of 2004 Examination of The Monson Law Firm on January 15, 2026. The examination sought information that MMA alleged The Monson Law Firm distributed which defamed MMA during the bankruptcy proceedings.
The parties initially attempted to resolve their disagreements through stipulations. On January 23, 2026, they filed an Agreed Emergency Motion for Resolution of Objections Regarding Rule 2004 Examination, asking the court to rule on disputed categories of documents and testimony rather than engaging in traditional motion to quash or motion to compel proceedings. The parties filed two subsequent stipulations on January 27 and January 28, 2026, which narrowed some issues but left core objections unresolved.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on January 29, 2026, at which MMA moved for judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) after The Monson Law Firm rested its case.
The Discovery Requests and Stipulations
Through their stipulations, the parties resolved several categories of discovery disputes. The Monson Law Firm agreed to produce documents responsive to certain requests and to have its managing attorney appear as the firm's representative at the examination. MMA narrowed Request No. 3 to include only materials actually used in presentations where MMA was discussed, limiting the timeframe to January 1, 2022 through April 9, 2024. MMA withdrew Request No. 4 entirely but preserved the right to question the managing attorney about social media posts and online content created by The Monson Law Firm.
After these stipulations, the remaining disputed requests included Request Nos. 1(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (k), (l), (m), (o), and (p) and Request Nos. 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (k), (l), (m), (o), and (p). The Monson Law Firm objected to these requests on multiple grounds, including state-law privileges and constitutional protections.
State-Law Privilege Claims
The Monson Law Firm asserted that the requested information was protected under several state-law provisions, including Texas Insurance Code Section 34.002, Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Part XVII, Rule 17.09, Louisiana Supreme Court Rule 19 Section 12, and Louisiana Revised Statute Section 22:1971.
The court found these objections insufficient, noting that The Monson Law Firm's pleadings failed to articulate the specific information allegedly protected by these statutes and rules. At the evidentiary hearing, the only evidence admitted into the record consisted of two letters from MMA's counsel: a cease-and-desist letter and a preservation letter, both dated July 9, 2025. The court determined this evidence was insufficient to meet The Monson Law Firm's burden of establishing entitlement to protection under the asserted state-law privileges, characterizing the objections as vague and unsupported by evidence.
First Amendment and Anti-SLAPP Arguments
The Monson Law Firm's central objection rested on constitutional grounds, arguing that MMA was using Rule 2004 to punish the firm for exercising its First Amendment rights and to avoid the burden of proving a prima facie defamation case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The TCPA is an anti-SLAPP statute designed to encourage and safeguard constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government.
The Monson Law Firm contended that if MMA had filed a state law defamation suit, MMA would have been required to prove its defamation case by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.005. The firm asserted that in such a hypothetical defamation lawsuit, it would have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss that likely would have been granted, thereby preventing MMA from obtaining the discovery it now seeks through the Rule 2004 examination.
Court's Ruling and Analysis
The court established jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334 and determined that the proceeding contained core matters under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O), as it primarily involved proceedings concerning the administration of the estate. The court further concluded it had constitutional authority to enter a final order both because the discovery dispute was a core proceeding and because all parties consented to adjudication by filing an agreed motion requesting the court to resolve the discovery disputes.
Addressing the First Amendment objections, the court found that The Monson Law Firm offered insufficient evidence at the evidentiary hearing to support its assertion of MMA's intent to circumvent defamation lawsuit requirements or the likely success of an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss in a hypothetical defamation lawsuit. The court noted that The Monson Law Firm failed to demonstrate that any potential defamation lawsuit filed by MMA would be litigated in state court or how the TCPA would apply in federal court.
Significantly, the court cited Fifth Circuit precedent establishing that anti-SLAPP statutes, such as the TCPA, cannot apply in federal court if they conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court referenced the Fifth Circuit's decision in Klocke v. Watson, which held that because the TCPA's burden-shifting framework imposes additional requirements beyond those found in Federal Rules 12 and 56 and answers the same question as those rules, the state law cannot apply in federal court.
The court characterized The Monson Law Firm's assertion that the Rule 2004 examination represents an improper attempt to obtain discovery that MMA would not otherwise be entitled to in a defamation lawsuit as speculative and not supported by evidence. Finding all objections wholly unsupported by the evidence and legal arguments presented, the court overruled The Monson Law Firm's objections to categories of documents and testimony contained in the Rule 2004 Notice.
The court granted MMA's motion for judgment on partial findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7052. The court applied the standard that as the ultimate fact-finder in a bench trial, it need not draw any special inferences in favor of the nonmovant but rather may weigh the evidence, resolve any conflicts, and decide where the preponderance of evidence lies.
Required Actions and Next Steps
The memorandum opinion requires The Monson Law Firm to take several specific actions. The representative of The Monson Law Firm must appear and testify at a Rule 2004 examination on February 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Central Standard Time, at the offices of Sternberg, Naccari & White, LLC, located at 935 Gravier Street, Suite 1800, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112.
The Monson Law Firm must produce documents responsive to MMA's Requests for Production Nos. 1(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (k), (l), (m), (o), (p) and Requests for Production Nos. 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (k), (l), (m), (o), and (p) by electronic transmission to MMA's counsel no later than 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on February 19, 2026.
The court further ordered that The Monson Law Firm must fully comply with the Limited Stipulation filed at ECF No. 1299 and ruled that all topics addressed in Request No. 1 and Request No. 2 are proper topics for examination and may be inquired into during the Rule 2004 examination.
The memorandum opinion incorporates by reference the background facts from the court's July 18, 2024, Memorandum Opinion in the case, suggesting an ongoing dispute between the parties that predates the current discovery conflict.
This article was prepared using Stretto Conductor, our new AI-powered assistant that's here to help. Stretto Conductor was able to create this summary of a 10 page court filing in less than a minute. Always review the underlying docket filings for accurate information. The information and responses generated by Stretto Conductor may contain errors or inaccuracies and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional or legal advice.