Preview
Electronically Filed
5/1/2023 9:28 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado
CAUSE NO. C-0474-21-D
Noel Arturo ZAMORA, Jr., §
Plaintiff, § 206th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
§
v. §
§
Reynaldo SALINAS-REYNA, Individually, §
and REYNALDO R. SALINAS, § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants §
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Comes now Noel Arturo ZAMORA, Jr., Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered
cause, and files this, his Motion to Compel Discovery Responses against Defendants Reynaldo
SALINAS-REYNA, Individually (hereinafter “Defendant Salinas-Reyna”), and REYNALDO R.
SALINAS “trucking company” (hereinafter “Defendant Reynaldo R. Salinas”), and in support
thereof, would respectfully show as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. This lawsuit arises out of automobile/tractor-trailer collision which occurred on
December 7, 2020, on FM 2221 (Jara Chinas Rd.), north of Expressway 83, near La Joya,
Hidalgo County, Texas.
2. On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendants Salinas-Reyna and
Reynaldo R. Salinas “trucking company” with Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests
for Production and Requests for Admission.
3. On May 7, 2021, Defendants provided their initial responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. In their initial responses, Defendants waged meritless objections and failed to
provide full and complete responses. Additionally, since their initial responses, Defendants have
changed counsel of record and have failed to provide any amended and/or supplemental
responses, more particularly as follows.
Page 1 of 5
Electronically Filed
5/1/2023 9:28 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado
Defendant Salinas-Reyna, Individually
4. In his initial answers to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 20, Defendant
Salinas-Reyna waged meritless objections and has failed to supplement his answers. (Exhibit
“A”)
5. In his responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15,
16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, Defendant waged meritless objections and has failed to
supplement his responses. Additionally, in his initial responses to RFP Nos. 12, 27, and 28,
Defendant responded with “Defendant will supplement.” To date, Defendant has failed to
supplement his responses. With regard to RFP Nos. 1, 7, 14, 17, 18, and 19, although Defendant
did not lodge any objections, his response stated: “Defendant reserves the right to supplement
this response.” To date, Defendant has failed to supplement and/or amend his responses.
(Exhibit “A”)
6. With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 39 and 40, Defendant has failed to
fully respond to these requests. The responses provided do not comport with Rule 198.2(b).
(Exhibit “A”)
Defendant Reynaldo R. Salinas “Trucking Company”
7. In the “trucking company’s” initial answer to Interrogatory No. 9, Defendant
waged objections and has failed to supplement and/or amend his answer. (Exhibit “B”)
8. With regard to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30, Defendant “trucking company” waged meritless objections and
has since failed to supplement and/or amend its responses. As to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 6, 11, 15, 18, 19,
20, and 21, Defendant stated: “Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response.” To
date, Defendant has failed to supplement and/or amend its responses. More specifically, in its
Page 2 of 5
Electronically Filed
5/1/2023 9:28 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado
response to RFP No. 15, wherein Plaintiff asked for copies of “registrations and titles for the
subject tractor and trailer”, Defendant stated that it reserved the right to supplement. In
Defendant Reynaldo Salinas’ deposition taken on June 17, 2021, in which he testified only as a
corporate representative of Defendant Salinas Trucking, Defendant was asked about its response
to RFP No.15 and its representative stated that he had these documents in his home. Plaintiff’s
counsel further provided him with his initial response to RFP No. 15, and Defendant, through its
corporate representative, stated the response given in its initial responses “It would be false, yes.
I’ve always had them at home.” (Exhibit “C”)
9. With regard to RFP No. 17, Defendant stated: “Defendant will supplement.” To
date, it has failed to supplement and/or amend this response; and as to RFP No. 27, Defendant
failed to provide any type of response. (Exhibit “B”)
9. With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 26 and 27, Defendant has failed to
fully respond to these requests. (Exhibit “B”)
10. The information and documentation Plaintiff seeks to compel are relevant to the
issues in controversy. Therefore, Plaintiff requests this Court set this motion for hearing.
11. Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the
case. Tex. R. Civ. Prac. 193. Information is discoverable as long as it is reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12. Defendants’ non-compliance with the discovery requests thwarts Plaintiff’s
discovery efforts, prevents effective trial preparation and conceals relevant facts. Plaintiff’s
discovery requests are within the permissible scope of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. For these
reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to set this motion for hearing, compel Defendants to fully
Page 3 of 5
Electronically Filed
5/1/2023 9:28 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado
respond to his First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production and Requests for Admissions,
and for any further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
13. An attempt to resolve this discovery dispute without court intervention has been
and/or was attempted prior to any setting on this motion. (Exhibit “D”)
PRAYER
Plaintiff prays that the Court set this motion for hearing and after the hearing, that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses be granted and Plaintiff be awarded any other
relief to which he may be entitled, both under law or equity.
Respectfully submitted,
GONZÁLEZ & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LTD.
Summit Park North
817 E. Esperanza Ave.
McAllen, TX 78501
Tel. No.: (956) 664-0100
Fax No.: (956) 664-1529
_______________________________________
Jaime A. González, Jr.
State Bar No. 08127600
jaime@jaglawfirm.com
Catherine W. Smith
State Bar No. 18547080
cat@jaglawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Designated E-Service E-mail Address: The following is the
designation of electronic service e-mail address for the above
attorney(s) for all electronically served documents and notices,
filed and unfiled, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(2) and
21(a): courtfiling@jaglawfirm.com. This is the ONLY
electronic service e-mail address for the above attorney(s), and
service through any other e-mail address will be considered
invalid.
Page 4 of 5
Electronically Filed
5/1/2023 9:28 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
forwarded to opposing counsel in accordance with T.R.C.P. 21a, on this the 1st day of May,
2023.
Via e-service
Messrs. Larry J. Goldman, Julian Dominguez
GOLDMAN & PETERSON, PLLC
10100 Reunion Place, Suite 800
San Antonio, TX 78216
Attorneys for Defendants
____________________________________
Catherine W. Smith
Page 5 of 5
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Roxanna Crowe on behalf of Jaime A. Gonzalez, Jr.
Bar No. 08127600
roxanna@jaglawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 75163081
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Plf's Mot to Compel Discovery Responses
Status as of 5/1/2023 9:34 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Reynaldo Salinas-Reyna
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
LARRY JGOLDMAN LARRY@LJGLAW.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
JULIAN RDOMINGUEZ JULIAN@LJGLAW.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: Reynaldo R. Salinas
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Larry J.Goldman mail@LJGLaw.com 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
JAIME GONZALEZ JAIME@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
CATHERINE SMITH CAT@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
CS COURTFILING@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
JAIME GONZALEZ roxanna@jaglawfirm.com 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 5/1/2023 9:28 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado CAUSE NO. C-0474-21-D Noel Arturo ZAMORA, Jr., § Plaintiff, § 206th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT § v. § § Reynaldo SALINAS-REYNA, Individually, § and REYNALDO R. SALINAS, § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants § PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Comes now Noel Arturo ZAMORA, Jr., Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files this, his Motion to Compel Discovery Responses against Defendants Reynaldo SALINAS-REYNA, Individually (hereinafter “Defendant Salinas-Reyna”), and REYNALDO R. SALINAS “trucking company” (hereinafter “Defendant Reynaldo R. Salinas”), and in support thereof, would respectfully show as follows: BACKGROUND 1. This lawsuit arises out of automobile/tractor-trailer collision which occurred on December 7, 2020, on FM 2221 (Jara Chinas Rd.), north of Expressway 83, near La Joya, Hidalgo County, Texas. 2. On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendants Salinas-Reyna and Reynaldo R. Salinas “trucking company” with Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission. 3. On May 7, 2021, Defendants provided their initial responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. In their initial responses, Defendants waged meritless objections and failed to provide full and complete responses. Additionally, since their initial responses, Defendants have changed counsel of record and have failed to provide any amended and/or supplemental responses, more particularly as follows. Page 1 of 5 Electronically Filed 5/1/2023 9:28 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado Defendant Salinas-Reyna, Individually 4. In his initial answers to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 20, Defendant Salinas-Reyna waged meritless objections and has failed to supplement his answers. (Exhibit “A”) 5. In his responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, Defendant waged meritless objections and has failed to supplement his responses. Additionally, in his initial responses to RFP Nos. 12, 27, and 28, Defendant responded with “Defendant will supplement.” To date, Defendant has failed to supplement his responses. With regard to RFP Nos. 1, 7, 14, 17, 18, and 19, although Defendant did not lodge any objections, his response stated: “Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response.” To date, Defendant has failed to supplement and/or amend his responses. (Exhibit “A”) 6. With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 39 and 40, Defendant has failed to fully respond to these requests. The responses provided do not comport with Rule 198.2(b). (Exhibit “A”) Defendant Reynaldo R. Salinas “Trucking Company” 7. In the “trucking company’s” initial answer to Interrogatory No. 9, Defendant waged objections and has failed to supplement and/or amend his answer. (Exhibit “B”) 8. With regard to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30, Defendant “trucking company” waged meritless objections and has since failed to supplement and/or amend its responses. As to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 6, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21, Defendant stated: “Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response.” To date, Defendant has failed to supplement and/or amend its responses. More specifically, in its Page 2 of 5 Electronically Filed 5/1/2023 9:28 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado response to RFP No. 15, wherein Plaintiff asked for copies of “registrations and titles for the subject tractor and trailer”, Defendant stated that it reserved the right to supplement. In Defendant Reynaldo Salinas’ deposition taken on June 17, 2021, in which he testified only as a corporate representative of Defendant Salinas Trucking, Defendant was asked about its response to RFP No.15 and its representative stated that he had these documents in his home. Plaintiff’s counsel further provided him with his initial response to RFP No. 15, and Defendant, through its corporate representative, stated the response given in its initial responses “It would be false, yes. I’ve always had them at home.” (Exhibit “C”) 9. With regard to RFP No. 17, Defendant stated: “Defendant will supplement.” To date, it has failed to supplement and/or amend this response; and as to RFP No. 27, Defendant failed to provide any type of response. (Exhibit “B”) 9. With regard to Requests for Admission Nos. 26 and 27, Defendant has failed to fully respond to these requests. (Exhibit “B”) 10. The information and documentation Plaintiff seeks to compel are relevant to the issues in controversy. Therefore, Plaintiff requests this Court set this motion for hearing. 11. Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case. Tex. R. Civ. Prac. 193. Information is discoverable as long as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12. Defendants’ non-compliance with the discovery requests thwarts Plaintiff’s discovery efforts, prevents effective trial preparation and conceals relevant facts. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are within the permissible scope of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to set this motion for hearing, compel Defendants to fully Page 3 of 5 Electronically Filed 5/1/2023 9:28 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado respond to his First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production and Requests for Admissions, and for any further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. 13. An attempt to resolve this discovery dispute without court intervention has been and/or was attempted prior to any setting on this motion. (Exhibit “D”) PRAYER Plaintiff prays that the Court set this motion for hearing and after the hearing, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses be granted and Plaintiff be awarded any other relief to which he may be entitled, both under law or equity. Respectfully submitted, GONZÁLEZ & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LTD. Summit Park North 817 E. Esperanza Ave. McAllen, TX 78501 Tel. No.: (956) 664-0100 Fax No.: (956) 664-1529 _______________________________________ Jaime A. González, Jr. State Bar No. 08127600 jaime@jaglawfirm.com Catherine W. Smith State Bar No. 18547080 cat@jaglawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Designated E-Service E-mail Address: The following is the designation of electronic service e-mail address for the above attorney(s) for all electronically served documents and notices, filed and unfiled, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(2) and 21(a): courtfiling@jaglawfirm.com. This is the ONLY electronic service e-mail address for the above attorney(s), and service through any other e-mail address will be considered invalid. Page 4 of 5 Electronically Filed 5/1/2023 9:28 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Nancy Delgado CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to opposing counsel in accordance with T.R.C.P. 21a, on this the 1st day of May, 2023. Via e-service Messrs. Larry J. Goldman, Julian Dominguez GOLDMAN & PETERSON, PLLC 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 800 San Antonio, TX 78216 Attorneys for Defendants ____________________________________ Catherine W. Smith Page 5 of 5 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Roxanna Crowe on behalf of Jaime A. Gonzalez, Jr. Bar No. 08127600 roxanna@jaglawfirm.com Envelope ID: 75163081 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Plf's Mot to Compel Discovery Responses Status as of 5/1/2023 9:34 AM CST Associated Case Party: Reynaldo Salinas-Reyna Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status LARRY JGOLDMAN LARRY@LJGLAW.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT JULIAN RDOMINGUEZ JULIAN@LJGLAW.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT Associated Case Party: Reynaldo R. Salinas Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Larry J.Goldman mail@LJGLaw.com 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status JAIME GONZALEZ JAIME@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT CATHERINE SMITH CAT@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT CS COURTFILING@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT JAIME GONZALEZ roxanna@jaglawfirm.com 5/1/2023 9:28:39 AM SENT