after the Law Firm served its responses, Mclnnis alleged that the Law Firm did not wholly answer all requested admissions. According to Mclnnis, the Law Firm had abused the discovery process by withholding information that she intended to use as summary-judgment evidence in her response to the Law Firm’s motion. A party should not be able to abuse the discovery process by withholding key evidence from a party opponent and then use that lack of evidence to win a judgment. See Specialty Retailers, Inc., 29 S.W.3d at 145 (providing that if a nonmovant established abuse of the discovery process, the nonmovant may likely establish that there was not an adequate time for discovery); Tempay, Inc. v. TNT Concrete & Constr., Inc., 37 S.W.3d 517, 522-23 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); see also Robert W. Clore, Texas Rule of Civil
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law recognizing that while summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery it is the nonmovants responsibility to inform the district court of the need for discovery by filing an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f of the federal rules of civil procedure or filing a motion requesting additional discovery holding trial court abused its discretion when case had been on file for only three months the discovery sought was material to the plaintiffs claims and the plaintiff exercised due diligence in obtaining discovery holding that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that adequate time for discovery had passed because movant successfully resisted nonmovants attempts to obtain discovery holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period