Preview
Electronically Filed
5/9/2023 9:36 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Faith Martinez
CAUSE NO. C-0474-21-D
NOEL ARTURO ZAMORA, JR. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ 206TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
REYNALDO SALINAS-REYNA, §
INDIVIDUALLY AND REYNALDO §
R. SALINAS §
Defendants § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES REYNALDO SALINAS-REYNA, and files this, his Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, moving this Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. In support
of this request, Defendant would respectfully show the Court the following:
BACKGROUND
1. Defendant would show that they have either provided sufficient responses, served
timely and proper objections, or Plaintiff’s request seeks information that is unknown or irrelevant
given the nature of the subject accident.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
2. As to many of the discovery requests which are the subject of the Plaintiff’s motion,
Defendant made a good faith effort to answer the portion that was discoverable. Rule 215.1 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for an order compelling discovery only if a party fails: (a)
to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 197, after proper service of
the interrogatories; or (b) to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 197; or (c) to serve a
written response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 196, after proper service of the
request; or (d) to respond that discovery will be permitted as requested or fails to permit discovery
Electronically Filed
5/9/2023 9:36 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Faith Martinez
as requested in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 196. 1 Plaintiff’s motion
should be denied because Defendant did in fact timely respond to the discovery requests with
appropriate objections and information that are available.
3. Although the scope of discovery is broad, a party's right to discovery is limited by
the opposing party's legitimate interests, such as the interest in avoiding overly broad requests,
harassment, or disclosure of privileged information. 2 Civil Procedure Rule 192 recognizes these
interests and limits the scope of discovery accordingly.
4. The Texas Supreme Court has identified requests as “overbroad” when they
encompass time periods, activities, or products that are not relevant to the case at hand. 3 In
determining whether a discovery request is overbroad, the trial court compares the allegations in
the pleadings with the discovery request to determine if the requested information bears a sufficient
relation to the allegations. 4 The objecting party does not have to present “evidence” to prove these
objections. 5 Discovery may not be used as a fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable
expenses on the opposing party. 6
5. When the parties do not tailor their requests to the subject matter of the litigation,
the trial court has the duty to place reasonable limits on the scope of discovery. The trial court,
however, is not responsible for rewriting and should not rewrite a plaintiff's discovery requests. 7
Thus, where a plaintiff propounds grossly overbroad requests for production to which an
overbreadth objection is lodged, the proper ruling is to sustain the objection.
1 TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.1(b)(3).
2 In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.1998) (orig. proceeding); K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429
(Tex. 1996); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 850 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. 1993); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992);
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Crowley, 899 S.W.2d 399, 402 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, leave denied); Lunsmann v.
Spector, 761 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1988, orig. proceeding).
3 See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 n. 1 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding).
4 See Texaco v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding).
5 See Gustafson v. Chambers, 871 S.W.2d 938, 942 (Tex. App -- Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); see also MCI
Telecommunications Corp. v. Crowley, 899 S.W.2d 399, 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding).
6 K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding).
7 See In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist] 2003, no writ).
2
Electronically Filed
5/9/2023 9:36 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Faith Martinez
7. Ultimately, Defendant has either provided timely and proper responses and
objections, or the discovery requests information that is irrelevant. Otherwise, the discovery
requests are being used as a fishing expedition and to impose harassing unreasonable burden and
expense on Defendant.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests that this
Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, and that Defendant receive any and all further and
additional relief, at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
GOLDMAN & PETERSON, PLLC
10100 Reunion Place, Suite 800
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Telephone: (210) 340-9800
Facsimile: (210) 340-9888
*Email: mail@ljglaw.com
*service by email to this address
By:
LARRY J. GOLDMAN
State Bar No. 08093450
Larry@LJGLaw.com
JULIAN R. DOMINGUEZ
State Bar No. 24107755
Julian@LJGLaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
3
Electronically Filed
5/9/2023 9:36 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Faith Martinez
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded
to the following counsel of record in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 9th
day of May, 2023.
Via E-Service: Via E-Service:
Mr. Jaime A. Gonzalez, Jr. Ms. Consuelito Martinez
Ms. Catherine W. Smith LAW OFFICES OF FANAFF, HOAGLAND,
GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LTD. GONZALES, BALDWIN & CUNNINGHAM
Summit Park North P.O. Box 258829
817 E. Esperanza Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829
McAllen, Texas 78501
Counsel for Counter-Defendant Noel Zamora
Counsel for Plaintiff Noel Zamora
Via E-Service:
Mr. Ezequiel Reyna, Jr.
LAW OFFICES OF EZEQUIEL REYNA, JR., P.C.
702 W. Expressway 83, Suite 100
Weslaco, Texas 78596
Counsel for Counter-Plaintiff Reynaldo
Salinas-Reyna
_____________________________________
LARRY J. GOLDMAN
JULIAN R. DOMINGUEZ
4
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.
Envelope ID: 75441002
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL
Status as of 5/9/2023 9:39 AM CST
Associated Case Party: NoelAZamora
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Consuelito Martinez 24095835 texnewmexlegal@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Consuelito Martinez consuelito.martinez@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Consuelito Martinez rose.m.madrigal@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: Reynaldo Salinas-Reyna
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Yvette Johnson YJohnson@lsslaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Ericka IRamirez eramirez@lsslaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Linda San Miguel lsmiguel@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Desi Olivarez dolivarez@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
LARRY JGOLDMAN LARRY@LJGLAW.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Rachel K.Buchhorn Rbuchhorn@lsslaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM ERROR
Richard NicolasMoore rnmoore@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM ERROR
M EREYES mereyes@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM ERROR
Associated Case Party: Reynaldo R. Salinas
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
CRISTINA Z cristina@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
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.
Envelope ID: 75441002
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL
Status as of 5/9/2023 9:39 AM CST
Case Contacts
JAIME GONZALEZ JAIME@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
CATHERINE SMITH CAT@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
KATHRYN ashburrn kathryn_ashburn@progressive.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
CS COURTFILING@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
JAIME GONZALEZ roxanna@jaglawfirm.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Consuelito Martinez texnewmexlegal@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Sonia Lopez slopez@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
CONSUELITO MARTINEZ MARTINEZ@FARMERSINSURANCE.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 5/9/2023 9:36 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Faith Martinez CAUSE NO. C-0474-21-D NOEL ARTURO ZAMORA, JR. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § v. § § 206TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT REYNALDO SALINAS-REYNA, § INDIVIDUALLY AND REYNALDO § R. SALINAS § Defendants § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES REYNALDO SALINAS-REYNA, and files this, his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, moving this Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. In support of this request, Defendant would respectfully show the Court the following: BACKGROUND 1. Defendant would show that they have either provided sufficient responses, served timely and proper objections, or Plaintiff’s request seeks information that is unknown or irrelevant given the nature of the subject accident. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 2. As to many of the discovery requests which are the subject of the Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant made a good faith effort to answer the portion that was discoverable. Rule 215.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for an order compelling discovery only if a party fails: (a) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 197, after proper service of the interrogatories; or (b) to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 197; or (c) to serve a written response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 196, after proper service of the request; or (d) to respond that discovery will be permitted as requested or fails to permit discovery Electronically Filed 5/9/2023 9:36 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Faith Martinez as requested in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 196. 1 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because Defendant did in fact timely respond to the discovery requests with appropriate objections and information that are available. 3. Although the scope of discovery is broad, a party's right to discovery is limited by the opposing party's legitimate interests, such as the interest in avoiding overly broad requests, harassment, or disclosure of privileged information. 2 Civil Procedure Rule 192 recognizes these interests and limits the scope of discovery accordingly. 4. The Texas Supreme Court has identified requests as “overbroad” when they encompass time periods, activities, or products that are not relevant to the case at hand. 3 In determining whether a discovery request is overbroad, the trial court compares the allegations in the pleadings with the discovery request to determine if the requested information bears a sufficient relation to the allegations. 4 The objecting party does not have to present “evidence” to prove these objections. 5 Discovery may not be used as a fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable expenses on the opposing party. 6 5. When the parties do not tailor their requests to the subject matter of the litigation, the trial court has the duty to place reasonable limits on the scope of discovery. The trial court, however, is not responsible for rewriting and should not rewrite a plaintiff's discovery requests. 7 Thus, where a plaintiff propounds grossly overbroad requests for production to which an overbreadth objection is lodged, the proper ruling is to sustain the objection. 1 TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.1(b)(3). 2 In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.1998) (orig. proceeding); K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 850 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. 1993); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Crowley, 899 S.W.2d 399, 402 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, leave denied); Lunsmann v. Spector, 761 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1988, orig. proceeding). 3 See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 n. 1 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). 4 See Texaco v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). 5 See Gustafson v. Chambers, 871 S.W.2d 938, 942 (Tex. App -- Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); see also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Crowley, 899 S.W.2d 399, 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding). 6 K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). 7 See In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist] 2003, no writ). 2 Electronically Filed 5/9/2023 9:36 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Faith Martinez 7. Ultimately, Defendant has either provided timely and proper responses and objections, or the discovery requests information that is irrelevant. Otherwise, the discovery requests are being used as a fishing expedition and to impose harassing unreasonable burden and expense on Defendant. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, and that Defendant receive any and all further and additional relief, at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, GOLDMAN & PETERSON, PLLC 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 800 San Antonio, Texas 78216 Telephone: (210) 340-9800 Facsimile: (210) 340-9888 *Email: mail@ljglaw.com *service by email to this address By: LARRY J. GOLDMAN State Bar No. 08093450 Larry@LJGLaw.com JULIAN R. DOMINGUEZ State Bar No. 24107755 Julian@LJGLaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 3 Electronically Filed 5/9/2023 9:36 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Faith Martinez CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to the following counsel of record in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 9th day of May, 2023. Via E-Service: Via E-Service: Mr. Jaime A. Gonzalez, Jr. Ms. Consuelito Martinez Ms. Catherine W. Smith LAW OFFICES OF FANAFF, HOAGLAND, GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LTD. GONZALES, BALDWIN & CUNNINGHAM Summit Park North P.O. Box 258829 817 E. Esperanza Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 McAllen, Texas 78501 Counsel for Counter-Defendant Noel Zamora Counsel for Plaintiff Noel Zamora Via E-Service: Mr. Ezequiel Reyna, Jr. LAW OFFICES OF EZEQUIEL REYNA, JR., P.C. 702 W. Expressway 83, Suite 100 Weslaco, Texas 78596 Counsel for Counter-Plaintiff Reynaldo Salinas-Reyna _____________________________________ LARRY J. GOLDMAN JULIAN R. DOMINGUEZ 4 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. Envelope ID: 75441002 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL Status as of 5/9/2023 9:39 AM CST Associated Case Party: NoelAZamora Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Consuelito Martinez 24095835 texnewmexlegal@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Consuelito Martinez consuelito.martinez@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Consuelito Martinez rose.m.madrigal@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Associated Case Party: Reynaldo Salinas-Reyna Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Yvette Johnson YJohnson@lsslaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Ericka IRamirez eramirez@lsslaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Linda San Miguel lsmiguel@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Desi Olivarez dolivarez@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT LARRY JGOLDMAN LARRY@LJGLAW.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Rachel K.Buchhorn Rbuchhorn@lsslaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM ERROR Richard NicolasMoore rnmoore@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM ERROR M EREYES mereyes@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM ERROR Associated Case Party: Reynaldo R. Salinas Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status CRISTINA Z cristina@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status 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. Envelope ID: 75441002 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL Status as of 5/9/2023 9:39 AM CST Case Contacts JAIME GONZALEZ JAIME@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT CATHERINE SMITH CAT@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT KATHRYN ashburrn kathryn_ashburn@progressive.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT CS COURTFILING@JAGLAWFIRM.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT JAIME GONZALEZ roxanna@jaglawfirm.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Consuelito Martinez texnewmexlegal@farmersinsurance.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT Sonia Lopez slopez@zreynalaw.com 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT CONSUELITO MARTINEZ MARTINEZ@FARMERSINSURANCE.COM 5/9/2023 9:36:57 AM SENT