when it denied their motion to compel production of documents more than two weeks after the trial court rendered its final summary judgment dismissing all of the Kaldises’ claims. On appeal, the Kaldises have not analyzed Aurora’s discovery objections or the grounds for the Kaldises’ motion to compel production. Nor have the Kaldises provided any legal authorities in support of their assertion that the trial court erred in this discovery ruling. We conclude that the Kaldises have failed to adequately brief their contention that the trial court erred in denying their motion to compel production of documents. Therefore, the Kaldises have waived this complaint. See Tex.RApp. P. 38.1(i); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we overrule the Kaldises’ fifth
holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding party must support argument with legal authority holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument holding that even though courts interpret briefing requirements reasonably and liberally parties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of the parties argument holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue