Preview
322-558426-14 FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/16/2015 2:42:29 PM
THOMAS A. WILDER
CAUSE NO. 322-558426-14 DISTRICT CLERK
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
ALYSON WOLFLE §
AND § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, JR. §
§
AND IN THE INTEREST OF §
ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, III, §
JULIA LORRAINE WOLFLE, AND §
EVAN MICHAEL WOLFLE § 322ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S
FEBRUARY 11, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION
Petitioner Alyson Swienton Wolfle hereby responds to Respondent’s motion to
compel her to mediate this case:
Response
Petitioner and Respondent married in 2004. Petitioner subsequently had three
children by Respondent. Those children are now six, five and two. In 2014, Petitioner
learned that Respondent had been engaged in a torrid affair with a co-worker. Petitioner
pleaded with Respondent to break off his relationship with his paramour, both for the
benefit of the parties and their children, but also because Respondent’s conduct was in
violation of company policy at Swearingen Realty. Respondent promised Petitioner he
had terminated the extramarital relationship and assured her that he wanted to work on
repairing the damage he had caused. However, a short time later, Petitioner discovered
Respondent had lied – and was continuing to lie, about his relationship with his co-
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015
MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 1
322-558426-14
worker. Petitioner ultimately filed this action for divorce. After suit was filed, Petitioner
served interrogatories and requests for production to try to gain access to information
about the community estate. When Respondent served his responses, he objected to
relevant requests. That forced Petitioner to file a motion to overrule the objections. The
night before the hearing, Respondent caved and agreed to answer the discovery in
question.
Petitioner was also forced – at great expense – to engage a forensic computer
specialist to try to recover emails and messages sent and received by Respondent that
pertain to his work, to community assets, to community funds he admitted he had spent
on his girlfriend, and to closely held businesses he was forming and promoting. During
the discovery process, Petitioner learned that Respondent destroyed relevant evidence. 1
Petitioner has also attempted to obtain information informally. For example, on
February 10, 2015, counsel for Petitioner requested access to a number of bank accounts
that admittedly contain community funds. Respondent’s lead counsel, David Hoffmann
replied:
“Ms. Wolfle will be provided with updated statements for all
accounts held by Mr. Wolfle or one of the various business entities that
he has ownership in; as has been the case throughout this litigation.
However, she will not be given ‘access to’ in any capacity a bank
account that is related to a business entity to which she is not an owner,
1Respondent claims that shortly before divorce was filed he “threw away” a personal computer he was
actively using.
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015
MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 2
322-558426-14
member, manager, officer or director. She will have to rely on
obtaining the account statements through discovery, as has been the
case throughout this litigation.” 2
This statement illustrates that Respondent wants to force Petitioner to mediate (and to
trial) without full and timely disclosure of information related to his business activities.
Respondent has also objected to production of communications pertaining to the
closely held businesses on the novel ground that Petitioner should have gathered the
information “from the initial imaging of Respondent’s electronic devices.” 3 The flaw in
that position is that for those electronic devices that Respondent did not intentionally
destroy to conceal evidence, the forensic computer specialist only had access to
Respondent’s devices in the summer of 2014. The devices were returned to Respondent
in early September 2014. So only Respondent has possession of electronic
communications that occurred after the devices were returned to him in September 2014.
Mediation at this point would be a waste of time and money. A mediation will be
appropriate after discovery has been completed.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner Alyson Swienton Wolfle urges the Court to deny
Respondent’s motion.
2February 11, 2015 letter from David Hoffmann to Ralph Duggins.
3Respondent’s responses to requests for production 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 79, 80,
81, and 82.
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015
MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 3
322-558426-14
/s/ Ralph H. Duggins
RALPH H. DUGGINS
rduggins@canteyhanger.com
State Bar No. 06183700
CANTEY HANGER LLP
Cantey Hanger Plaza
600 W. 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 877-2800
Facsimile: (817) 877-2807
ROBERT E. ALDRICH, JR.
State Bar No. 00984100
raldrich@gardneraldrich.com
1130 Fort Worth Club Tower
777 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Tecas 76102
Telephone: 817-336-5601
Facsimile: 817-336-5297
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served in the
following manner to the following individual on the 16th day of February 2015.
Via Certified Mail and
Via Eservice
David Hoffmann
dhoffmann@qslwm.com
Elizabeth Hunter
ehunter@qslwm.com
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.
2001 Bryan Street Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
/s/ Ralph H. Duggins
RALPH H. DUGGINS
PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015
MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 4
Preview
322-558426-14 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/16/2015 2:42:29 PM THOMAS A. WILDER CAUSE NO. 322-558426-14 DISTRICT CLERK IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE MARRIAGE OF § § ALYSON WOLFLE § AND § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, JR. § § AND IN THE INTEREST OF § ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, III, § JULIA LORRAINE WOLFLE, AND § EVAN MICHAEL WOLFLE § 322ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION Petitioner Alyson Swienton Wolfle hereby responds to Respondent’s motion to compel her to mediate this case: Response Petitioner and Respondent married in 2004. Petitioner subsequently had three children by Respondent. Those children are now six, five and two. In 2014, Petitioner learned that Respondent had been engaged in a torrid affair with a co-worker. Petitioner pleaded with Respondent to break off his relationship with his paramour, both for the benefit of the parties and their children, but also because Respondent’s conduct was in violation of company policy at Swearingen Realty. Respondent promised Petitioner he had terminated the extramarital relationship and assured her that he wanted to work on repairing the damage he had caused. However, a short time later, Petitioner discovered Respondent had lied – and was continuing to lie, about his relationship with his co- PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 1 322-558426-14 worker. Petitioner ultimately filed this action for divorce. After suit was filed, Petitioner served interrogatories and requests for production to try to gain access to information about the community estate. When Respondent served his responses, he objected to relevant requests. That forced Petitioner to file a motion to overrule the objections. The night before the hearing, Respondent caved and agreed to answer the discovery in question. Petitioner was also forced – at great expense – to engage a forensic computer specialist to try to recover emails and messages sent and received by Respondent that pertain to his work, to community assets, to community funds he admitted he had spent on his girlfriend, and to closely held businesses he was forming and promoting. During the discovery process, Petitioner learned that Respondent destroyed relevant evidence. 1 Petitioner has also attempted to obtain information informally. For example, on February 10, 2015, counsel for Petitioner requested access to a number of bank accounts that admittedly contain community funds. Respondent’s lead counsel, David Hoffmann replied: “Ms. Wolfle will be provided with updated statements for all accounts held by Mr. Wolfle or one of the various business entities that he has ownership in; as has been the case throughout this litigation. However, she will not be given ‘access to’ in any capacity a bank account that is related to a business entity to which she is not an owner, 1Respondent claims that shortly before divorce was filed he “threw away” a personal computer he was actively using. PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 2 322-558426-14 member, manager, officer or director. She will have to rely on obtaining the account statements through discovery, as has been the case throughout this litigation.” 2 This statement illustrates that Respondent wants to force Petitioner to mediate (and to trial) without full and timely disclosure of information related to his business activities. Respondent has also objected to production of communications pertaining to the closely held businesses on the novel ground that Petitioner should have gathered the information “from the initial imaging of Respondent’s electronic devices.” 3 The flaw in that position is that for those electronic devices that Respondent did not intentionally destroy to conceal evidence, the forensic computer specialist only had access to Respondent’s devices in the summer of 2014. The devices were returned to Respondent in early September 2014. So only Respondent has possession of electronic communications that occurred after the devices were returned to him in September 2014. Mediation at this point would be a waste of time and money. A mediation will be appropriate after discovery has been completed. WHEREFORE, Petitioner Alyson Swienton Wolfle urges the Court to deny Respondent’s motion. 2February 11, 2015 letter from David Hoffmann to Ralph Duggins. 3Respondent’s responses to requests for production 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 79, 80, 81, and 82. PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 3 322-558426-14 /s/ Ralph H. Duggins RALPH H. DUGGINS rduggins@canteyhanger.com State Bar No. 06183700 CANTEY HANGER LLP Cantey Hanger Plaza 600 W. 6th Street, Suite 300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 877-2800 Facsimile: (817) 877-2807 ROBERT E. ALDRICH, JR. State Bar No. 00984100 raldrich@gardneraldrich.com 1130 Fort Worth Club Tower 777 Taylor Street Fort Worth, Tecas 76102 Telephone: 817-336-5601 Facsimile: 817-336-5297 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served in the following manner to the following individual on the 16th day of February 2015. Via Certified Mail and Via Eservice David Hoffmann dhoffmann@qslwm.com Elizabeth Hunter ehunter@qslwm.com Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C. 2001 Bryan Street Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 /s/ Ralph H. Duggins RALPH H. DUGGINS PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S FEBRUARY 11, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION PAGE 4