Tex. R. Civ. P. 194 · B. Discovery
REQUIRED DISCLOSURES IN SUITS NOT GOVERNED BY THE FAMILY CODE
Text — As posted by the Supreme Court of Texas (file dated October 2, 2026)
194.1 Duty to Disclose; Production.
(a) Duty to Disclose. Except in a suit governed by the Family Code, as exempted by Rule 194.2(c), or as otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties the information or material described in Rule 194.2, 194.3, and 194.4.
(b) Production. If a party does not produce copies of all responsive documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things with the response, the response must state a reasonable time and method for the production of these items. The responding party must produce the items at the time and in the method stated, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, and must provide the requesting party a reasonable opportunity to inspect them.
194.2 Initial Disclosures.
(a) Time for Initial Disclosures. A party must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after the filing of the first answer or general appearance unless a different time is set by the parties’ agreement or court order. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the filing of the first answer or general appearance must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different time is set by the parties’ agreement or court order.
(b) Content. Without awaiting a discovery request, a party must provide to the other parties:
(1) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
(2) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
(3) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party's claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);
(4) the amount and any method of calculating economic damages;
(5) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case;
(6) a copy–or a description by category and location–of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the responding party has in its possession, custody, or control, and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
(7) any indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule 192.3(f);
(8) any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3(g);
(9) any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h);
(10) in a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills;
(11) in a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party; and
(12) the name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party.
(c) Proceedings Exempt from Initial Disclosure. The following proceedings are exempt from initial disclosure, but a court may order the parties to make particular disclosures and set the time for disclosure:
(1) an action for review on an administrative record;
(2) a forfeiture action arising from a state statute;
(3) a petition for habeas corpus;
(4) an action involving domestic violence; and
(5) an action on appeal from a justice court.
194.3 Testifying Expert Disclosures.
In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 194.2, a party must disclose to the other parties testifying expert information as provided by Rule 195.
194.4 Pretrial Disclosures.
(a) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 194.2 and 194.3, a party must provide to the other parties and promptly file the following information about the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment:
(1) the name and, if not previously provided, the address, and telephone number of each witness–separately identifying those the party expects to present and those it may call if the need arises; and
(2) a list identifying each document or other exhibits, including summaries of other evidence–separately identifying those items the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises.
(b) Time for Pretrial Disclosures. Unless the court orders otherwise, these disclosures must be made at least 30 days before trial.
194.5 No Objection or Assertion of Work Product.
No objection or assertion of work product is permitted to a disclosure under this rule.
194.6 Certain Responses Not Admissible.
A disclosure under Rule 194.2(b)(3) and (4) that has been changed by an amended or supplemental response is not admissible and may not be used for impeachment.
Notes and commentary — not rule text
Notes and Comments
Comment to 1999 change:
1. Disclosure is designed to afford parties basic discovery of specific categories of information, not automatically in every case, but upon request, without preparation of a lengthy inquiry, and without objection or assertion of work product. In those extremely rare cases when information ordinarily discoverable should be protected, such as when revealing a person’s residence might result in harm to the person, a party may move for protection. A party may assert any applicable privileges other than work product using the procedures of Rule 193.3 applicable to other written discovery. Otherwise, to fail to respond fully to a request for disclosure would be an abuse of the discovery process.
2. Rules 194.2(c) and (d) permit a party further inquiry into another’s legal theories and factual claims than is often provided in notice pleadings. So-called “contention interrogatories” are used for the same purpose. Such interrogatories are not properly used to require a party to marshal evidence or brief legal issues. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are intended to require disclosure of a party’s basic assertions, whether in prosecution of claims or in defense. Thus, for example, a plaintiff would be required to disclose that he or she claimed damages suffered in a car wreck caused by defendant’s negligence in speeding, and would be required to state how loss of past earnings and future earning capacity was calculated, but would not be required to state the speed at which defendant was allegedly driving. Paragraph (d) does not require a party, either a plaintiff or a defendant, to state a method of calculating non-economic damages, such as for mental anguish. In the same example, defendant would be required to disclose his or her denial of the speeding allegation and any basis for contesting the damage calculations.
3. Responses under Rule 194.2(c) and (d) that have been amended or supplemented are inadmissible and cannot be used for impeachment, but other evidence of changes in position is not likewise barred.
Comment to 2021 change: Rule 194 is amended to implement section 22.004(h-1) of the Texas Government Code. Rule 194 is amended based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) to require disclosure of basic discovery automatically, without awaiting a discovery request. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s disclosures or because another party has not made its disclosures. As with other written discovery responses, required disclosures must be signed under Rule 191.3, complete under Rule 193.1, served under rule 191.5, and timely amended or supplemented under Rule 193.5.
Comment to 2023 change: Rule 194 is amended to implement chapter 301 of the Family Code.
Source of truth
- Edition
- As posted by the Supreme Court of Texas (file dated October 2, 2026)
- Official file
- https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1463426/texas-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf (PDF pages 147–150)
- Text hash
- sha256 d7557537769025adf9cde4794fc9a326d34e11438d31238ed2700badf0e6cf88
- Composed by
- compose_tx_rules.py 2026-10-05: two PDF extractors agree character for character after the same chrome removal
BenchPath cards that rely on this text
46 cards, in title order.
- 106th District Court Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Dawson County (signed July 5, 2022)
- 106th District Court Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Gaines County (signed July 5, 2022)
- 106th District Court Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Garza County (signed July 5, 2022)
- 109th District Court Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Andrews County (February 2023)
- 109th District Court Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Crane County (signed February 13, 2023)
- 143rd District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Loving, Reeves and Ward Counties (signed July 21, 2026)
- 143rd District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Loving, Reeves and Ward Counties (signed July 21, 2026)
- 143rd District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases Filed in Loving, Reeves and Ward Counties (signed July 21, 2026)
- 173rd District Court Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Lawsuits from the Mandatory Disclosure Requirements of TRCP 194 (signed April 9, 2026)
- 271st District Court Standing Order — Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (Wise & Jack)
- 274th District Court Standing Order — Delinquent Tax Collection Cases (TRCP 194 Disclosure Waiver)
- 284th District Court — Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (Feb. 11, 2021)
- 31st District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed December 9, 2021)
- 31st District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed December 9, 2021)
- 31st District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed December 9, 2021)
- 31st District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed December 9, 2021)
- 31st District Court's Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed December 9, 2021)
- 355th District Court Local Rules (Hood County)
- 355th District Court Standard Criminal Discovery Order (Hood County)
- 355th District Court Standing Order — Mandatory Disclosure Exemption in Delinquent Tax Cases (Hood County)
- 35th District Court Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Collection Cases from Mandatory Disclosure - Mills County (May 13, 2021)
- 40th District Court Standing Order for Delinquent Tax Collection Cases (Cause No. CIV-40-001)
- 66th Judicial District Court Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (Hill County)
- 87th District Court (Limestone County) - Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Collection Suits from Mandatory Disclosure under TRCP 194 (August 23, 2021)
- 87th District Court (Limestone County) - Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Collection Suits from Mandatory Disclosure under TRCP 194 (August 23, 2021)
- 97th Judicial District Court (Archer County) — Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases
- 97th Judicial District Court (Clay County) — Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases
- 97th Judicial District Court (Montague County) — Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases
- Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties District Courts' Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed May 25, 2022)
- Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties District Courts' Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed May 25, 2022)
- Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties District Courts' Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases (signed May 25, 2022)
- Hopkins County Court at Law Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Lawsuits from the Mandatory Disclosure Requirements of TRCP 194 (signed November 30, 2021)
- Hopkins County Court at Law Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Lawsuits from the Mandatory Disclosure Requirements of TRCP 194 (signed November 30, 2021)
- Joint Standing Order Exempting Tax Suits from Mandatory Disclosures under Rule 194 (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th District Courts; Calhoun County)
- Joint Standing Order Exempting Tax Suits from Mandatory Disclosures under Rule 194 (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th District Courts; DeWitt County)
- Joint Standing Order Exempting Tax Suits from Mandatory Disclosures under Rule 194 (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th District Courts; Goliad County)
- Joint Standing Order Exempting Tax Suits from Mandatory Disclosures under Rule 194 (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th District Courts; Jackson County)
- Joint Standing Order Exempting Tax Suits from Mandatory Disclosures under Rule 194 (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th District Courts; Refugio County)
- Joint Standing Order Exempting Tax Suits from Mandatory Disclosures under Rule 194 (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th District Courts; Victoria County)
- Justice Court, Precinct 1 (Tarrant County) — Local Rule: Discovery (eff. July 1, 2015; rev. Apr. 30, 2026)
- Justice Court, Precinct 2 (Tarrant County) — Local Rule: Discovery (eff. July 1, 2015; rev. May 1, 2026)
- Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Collection Cases from TRCP 194 Disclosure — 216th District Court (Kerr County)
- Order Exempting Delinquent Tax Collection Cases from TRCP 194 Disclosure — 216th District Court (Kerr County)
- Required Initial Disclosures Within 30 Days of First Answer — Tex. R. Civ. P. 194
- Standing Order for Delinquent Tax Collection Cases under the Texas Property Tax Code (Hays County)
- Wichita County District Courts Standing Order — Mandatory Disclosures in Tax Cases
This rule cites
Provisions in this library that the text above cites, as it prints each citation. A range cited as “ss. 61.13-61.16” links its first and last provisions.
Cited by 1 provision
Provisions in this library whose text cites Tex. R. Civ. P. 194. Each shows the citation as that text prints it.
Procedural information only. Not legal advice and not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Confirm the current text with the official publisher before relying on it.