produced 300 documents that were “responsive to the request and [were] reasonably available to the [him as the] responding party in [his] ordinary course of business.” See id. Arthur did not file any other motions to compel discovery from Harris, nor did Arthur ever serve Harris with a discovery request for his hard drives. Thus, Arthur failed to follow the first step required by Rule 196.4 and Weelcley Homes by failing to make a specific request of the production of the hard drives themselves. See id. (“To obtain discovery of data or information that exists in electronic or magnetic form, the requesting party must specifically request production of electronic or magnetic data and specify the form in which the requesting party wants it produced.”); Weelcley Homes, 295 S.W.3d at 314 (<HOLDING>). The trial court also failed to follow any of
holding that noncompliance with mandatory requirement of search warrant statute designed to ensure that warrants are issued upon reliable information required that information provided by informants be ignored in determining probable cause holding that specific request is required to ensure that requests for electronic information are clearly understood and disputes avoided holding that the trial court must ensure that the requests are tailored to the specific action and that discovery requests that reflect a mere fishing expedition should not be allowed holding that requests for admissions seeking purely legal conclusions are inappropriate and the failure to respond to such a request may not be the basis for a summaiy judgment holding that  a request for information and explanation is not sufficient to constitute a claim absent a demand for action by the insured