Preview
CAUSE NO. 22 292653
EDWARD ZAJICEK, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
COLLEEN ZAJICEK, AND
UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC
Vv FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
TODD TANNER, CLYDE J. MOORE,
AND CASSANDRA MOORE TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM
DEFENDANTS CLYDE J. MOORE AND CASSANDRA MOORE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (“Plaintiff’ or “ORT”) files
this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants Clyde J. Moore and
Cassandra Moore (“Defendants” or “Moores”), and in support thereof, respectfully show
the following:
SUMMARY OF MOTION
Plaintiff served written discovery requests on Defendant . After nearly five months
since served the requests, Defendant have failed to provide sufficient information or
produce documents responsive to all of Plaintiff's requests. Moreover, Defendant have
lodged dilatory and invalid objections to all of Plaintiff's requests. Therefore, this Court
should grant Plaintiffs Motion and order the relief requested herein.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
Exhibit A Plaintiff's Written Discovery Requests to Defendant
Exhibit B Defendant Responses to Plaintiff's First Requests for
Production
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
Exhibit C Defendants Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories
Exhibit Defendant Clyde J. Moore’s Responses to Plaintiffs First
Requests for Admissions
Exhibit E Defendant Cassandra Moore’s Reponses to Plaintiff's First
Requests for Admissions
Exhibit F Plaintiff's discovery deficiency letter to Defendants
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff served its First Requests for Production, First
Set of Interrogatories, and First Requests for Admissions on Defendant . See Ex. A.
Defendant served their objections and responses on March 1, 2023. See Ex .B
Defendants responses, however, were wholly deficient and all objections
were invalid. /d. Further, Defendant failed to produce any responsive documents.
Thereafter, Plaintiff sent Defendants counsel a deficiency letter, setting forth the multiple
deficiencies with Defendant's discovery responses. See Ex. F. However, Defendants
never amended nor supplemented their responses, nor did they produce any responsive
documents.
For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant Plaintiffs Motion;
overrule Defendants’ blanket objections; overrule Defendants objections to all Requests
for Production; compel Defendants to supplement their responses to all Requests for
Production; produce all responsive documents; overrule Defendants’ objections to
Interrogatories; compel Defendant to individually answer all Interrogatories deem the
Requests for Admission admitted, or alternatively, overrule Defendants’ objections to
Requests for Admission and compel Defendants to answer all Requests for Admission
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
EFENDANTS MPROPER LANKET BJECTIONS
In response to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production, First Set of
Interrogatories, and First Requests for Admission, Defendants improperly lodged the
following blanket objections. See Ex. B at 4; Ex. C at 3 4; Ex. D at 3 4; and Ex.
E at3
Under the Texas Rules of Procedure, a party must respond to each request in writing
and the corresponding request must precede the response or objection. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 193.1.
Moreover, the responding party must state specifically the legal or factual
basis for his or her objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with
the request. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). A party may not make a blanket objection to all
discovery, but must state an objection to each individual discovery request. See Burton
v. West, 749 S.W.2d 505, 507 08 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendants’ blanket objections and
compel Defendants to respond to each separate written discovery request.
FENDANTS ESPONSES TO LAINTIFF S IRST EQUESTS FOR RODUCTION
Defendants’ Failure to Produce Documents
Defendants wholly failed to produce any documents responsive to Plaintiff's
First Requests for Production. “A person is required to produce a document or tangible
thing that is within the person’s possession, custody, or control.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(b).
As stated by the Texas Supreme Court, “[p]ossession, custody, or control of an item
means that the person either has physical possession of the item or has a right to
possession of the item that is equal or superior to the person who has physical possession
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
of the item.” In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Tex. 2003). As such, Defendants must
produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control.
Defendants Objection Regarding Overly Broad, Unduly Burdensome and
Expensive
In response to each of Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Defendants lodge
the same objection that “Defendants object to this request as overly broad, unduly
burdensome and expensive...” See Ex. B.
“A request is not over broad so long as it is reasonably tailored to include
only matters relevant to the case.” In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219,
(Tex. 2016) (internal quotations omitted); see also In re American Optical Corp., 988
S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). Each request propounded by Plaintiff has been reasonably
tailored to only include matters relevant to this case. Plaintiff has brought claims against
Defendants for their failure to disclose and/or active concealment of the judgment lien
against Defendant Clyde J. Moore (“Jerry”), which encumbered the subject property.
Plaintiff has proper y requested correspondence, agreements, offers, and documents that
only relate to its claims and Defendants’ defenses. As such, none of the requests are
“overly broad.”
Moreover, “[a]ny party who seeks to exclude matters from discovery on
grounds that the requested information is unduly burdensome, costly or harassing to
produce, has the affirmative duty to plead and prove the work necessary to comply with
discovery.” Independent Insulating Glass/Southwest, Inc. v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798, 802
(Tex. App. Fort Worth 1987, writ dism’d). Conclusory allegations that the requested
discovery is unduly burdensome are not permissible. In re Alford Chevrolet Geo, 997
S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex. 1999). Defendants have not provided any evidence to support
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
their claim that production of the requested documents is “unduly burdensome” and
“expensive.”
Therefore, Defendants objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Production that
each request is “overly broad, unduly burdensome and expensive should be overruled
and Defendants should be compelled to produce all responsive documents to each of
Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos. 1
Defendants’ Objection Regarding Private Information
Further, in response to Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1 , ; and
Defendants claim Plaintiff's requests seek “private information,” and/or the requests
are “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and financial information...” See Ex. B.
The party who seeks to limit discovery by asserting that the information sought is private
has the burden of producing evidence to support its assertion. In re Crestcare Nursing &
Rehab. Ctr., 222 S.W.3d 68, 73 (Tex. App. Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding). Conclusory
allegations will not meet this burden. /d. at 74. A party asserting that privacy rights protect
information from disclosure must present evidence showing a particular, articulated and
demonstrable injury. /d. Accordingly, Defendants cannot claim that the RFP Nos. 1 5 and
8 seek private information without producing any evidence that the correspondence
contains private information. Therefore, Defendants’ objections regarding privacy in
response to RFP Nos. 1 , , 10 should be overruled and Defendants should be
compelled to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests.
Defendants’ Vague Objection
In response to Plaintiffs RFP Nos. 1 5, Defendants lodge the following
objection: “Defendants object to this request on the grounds the phrase ‘all
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between
Defendants and their real estate agent/ORT/Todd Tanner/Buyers/any other person’ is
vague and is not limited by time or scope.” This objection is entirely unfounded. The term
“correspondence” is a common word meaning communication by exchanging letters,
emails, or other messages. See “Correspondence,” Merriam Webster.com.
In fact, in each request Plaintiff defines “correspondence” to include, but not
be limited to, “emails and text messages.” Surely, even if the word “correspondence”
alone is somehow “vague,” Defendants would understand that Plaintiff is seeking the
production of written communications when Plaintiff further states that it is seeking “emails
and text messages”. Thus, Defendants’ objection that Plaintiffs RFP Nos. 1 5 are vague
is entirely meritless. Additionally, the “definitions and instructions” portion of Plaintiff's
requests specifically states in Definition No. 17 that “The time period covered by these
requests includes all relevant time periods subject to this lawsuit.” Clearly, Plaintiff is not
seeking correspondence outside the relevant time periods. Therefore, Defendants’
objection that RFP Nos. 1 5 are not limited in time and scope is unfounded and should
be overruled. Defendants should be compelled to produce the requested correspondence
to Plaintiff.
Moreover, in response to RFP Nos. 1 5, Defendants object that Plaintiff's
request for correspondence related to “any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit” is
vague and ambiguous. However, the fact that Plaintiff is requesting correspondence
related to the basis of this lawsuit shows that the request itself is limited to only those
matters relevant to this lawsuit. As stated above, this objection should be overruled and
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is entitled to the production of documents relevant and reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants’ Objection that Plaintiff Possesses the Requested Documents
n response to RFP Nos. 1 5 and 8 9, Defendants aver that Plaintiff already
possesses the requested documents or should seek the requested documents from the
public record. See Ex. B. This is impermissible. “Texas law does not allow a party to
evade discovery requests by simply asserting that the other party already has the
information.” See In re Sting Soccer Grp., LP, No. 05 00317 CV, 2017 Tex. App.
LEXIS 11197, 2017 WL 5897454, at *19 (Tex. App. Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.); see
also In re Ochoa, No. 12 00163 CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4866, 2004 WL 1192444,
at *5 (Tex. Ap Tyler May 28, 2004, no pet.). Accordingly, this objection should
overruled. Defendants should be compelled to produce all documents responsive to
Plaintiff's First Requests for Production.
EFENDANTS NSWERS TO LAINTIFF S IRST ET OF NTERROGATORIES
Defendants’ Failure to Answer Interrogatories
A responding party must fully answer an interrogatory. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
193.1. An evasive or incomplete answer will be treated as a failure to answer. See Tex.
R. Civ. P. 215.1(c). Both Jerry and Cassandra Moore (“Cassandra”) failed to provide even
one answer in response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. See Ex. C. As such,
Defendants must be ordered to supplement their answers to Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories. Further, per Rule 197.2(d), Defendants’ answers must be verified.
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
Defendants’ Improper Joint Answer to Interrogatories
Each party must provide written answers to interrogatories. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 193.1. Thus, it is impermissible for Jerry and Cassandra to provide a joint answer when
Plaintiff served Jerry and Cassandra with separate sets of interrogatories. See Ex. A and
Ex. C. As such, Defendants should be compelled to provide separate, verified answer
to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.
Defendants’ Bad Faith Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories
ursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may object to written
discovery only if a good faith factual and legal basis for the objection exists at the time
the objection is made.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(c). Clearly, none of Defendants’ objections
to Plaintiff's interrogatories were made in good faith. See Ex. C.
Each interrogatory propounded on Defendants was narrowly tailored and
relevant to the issues of this lawsuit. The fact that Defendants objected without providing
any of the requested information confirms that these objections were made in bad faith.
As such, Defendants must be compelled to supplement their answers and remove their
invalid objections.
EFENDANTS AILEDTO ESPONDTO LAINTIFF S IRST EQUESTS FOR DMISSIONS
Defendants’ Improperly Objected to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions
Jerry and Cassandra both wholly failed to provide a single answer to
Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions of basic facts and instead lodged dilatory
objections seeing to evade responding. As such, this Court should deem all of Plaintiff's
Requests for Admissions as admitted.
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
A party’s response to a request for admission must: admit, specifically deny,
object, explain in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or
deny the request, assert a privilege, or move for a protective order. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
198.2(b); see also Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 260 61 (Tex. App. Fort Worth
2006, pet. denied).
If part of the request is objectionable and part of the request is not, then the
responding party must identify the specific part of the request that is objectionable, make
its objection, and then admit or deny the remainder. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2, 198.2(b).
Moreover, the responding party must state specifically the legal or factual basis for its
objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a).
Boilerplate objections are impermissible; when the responding party
objects, it must specifically demonstrate how each request is objectionable. See In re
Alford Chevrolet Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex. 1999) (finding that a party that resists
discovery “cannot simply make conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is
unduly burdensome or unnecessarily harassing.”). Moreover, as stated above, it is
impermissible to object that a party already possesses the requested documents or
should seek the requested documents from the public record. See In re Sting Soccer
Grp., LP, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197, at *19; see also In re Ochoa, 2004 Tex. App.
LEXIS 4866, at *5.
If the responding party fails to meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 198, the trial court has discretion to deem the matter admitted or require the
responding party to amend its response. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.4(a); see also Taylor v.
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
Taylor, 747 S.W.2d 940, 945 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1988, writ denied) (“having found there
was no proper response to the requests and that the answer and objections to the
requests did not satisfy the requirements of the rule, the court was authorized, if not
required, by the rules to deem the matters admitted”). The trial court may also treat
evasive or incomplete responses to requests for admissions as deemed admissions.
Guzman v. Carnevale, 964 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
Here, neither Jerry nor Cassandra provided a response to any of Plaintiff's
First Requests for Admission. Instead, they categorically objected to each request. As
such, this Court should deem the Requests for Admissions admitted or, in the alternative,
Defendants should be compelled to amend their respective responses to Plaintiff's First
Requests for Admissions.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
After Plaintiff served its written discovery requests on Defendant
January 31, 2023, Defendant refused to fully answer, respond, and provide responsive
documents to Plaintiff's requests. Accordingly, this Court must grant Plaintiff's Motion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Old Republic National Title Insurance Company requests
this Court grant its Motion; overrule Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra Moore’s
blanket objections; overrule Defendants objections to all Requests for Production;
mpel Defendants to supplement their responses to all Requests for Production;
produce all responsive documents; overrule Defendants’ objections to Interrogatories;
compel Defendant to individually answer all Interrogatories overrule Defendants’
objections to Requests for Admission; and compel Defendants to answer all Requests for
Admission.; and for all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
Respectfully submitted,
IRELAN McDANIEL, PLLC
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Bradford W. lIrelan
State Bar No. 10411550
birelan@IMTexasLaw.com
Jacob M. Stephens
State Bar No. 24066143
jstephens@IMTexasLaw.com
2520 Caroline St., 2nd Floor
Houston, Texas 77004
(713) 222 7666 Telephone
(713) 222 7669 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
| hereby certify that | have attempted to confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding
the relief requested in this motion, but have been unable to reach a resolution without
court intervention. It is presumed that Defendants are opposed to the relief requested
herein.
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Jacob M. Stephens
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| certify that on June 30, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as
indicated below:
Wendell A. Odom, Jr. Via Electronic Service
wendellodom@aol.com
ODOM, DAVIS & HOBSON
440 Louisiana St., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Andy Taylor Via Electronic Service
ataylor@andytaylorlaw.com
ANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2628 Highway 36S, #288
Brenham, TX 77833
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Jacob M. Stephens
LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS.
EXHIBIT A
CAUSE NO. DCV 292653
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
TODD TANNER, CLYDE J. MOORE,
AND CASSANDRA MOORE
Defendants. 458TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT
TO Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore, by and through their counsel of
record, Paul M. Sullivan, The Law Office of Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC, 6602 Westview
Drive, Houston, Texas 77055
Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company (“Plaintiff or “ORT”) serve these Requests for Production
Defendant Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore (“Defendant ” or “Moores Defendants
must answer each request separately, fully, in writing, and within 30 days after service.
Defendants shall supplement all responses to these requests as required by Rule 193.5 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
RELAN ANIEL PLLC
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Bradford W. Irelan
State Bar No. 10411550
birelan@IMTexasLaw.com
Jacob M. Stephens
State Bar No. 24066143
jstephens@IMTexasLaw.com
2520 Caroline St., 2nd Floor
Houston, Texas 77004
(713) 222 Telephone
(713) 222 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on January 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as indicated
below:
Paul M. Sullivan Via Electronic Service
paul.sullivan@psullivanlawfirm.com
The Law Office of
Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC
6602 Westview Drive
Houston, TX 77055
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Jacob M. Stephens
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
“Document” or “documents” means all written, typed, or printed matter and all magnetic,
electronic, or other records or documentation of any kind or description in your actual
possession, custody, or control, including those in the possession, custody, or control of
any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, consultants, accountants,
attorneys, or other agents, whether or not prepared by you, that constitute or contain
matters relevant to the subject matter of the action. This includes any handwritten,
typewritten, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, photocopied, photostatic,
telecopier, filmed, microfilmed, or otherwise prepared matter, including without
limitation, drafts, however produced or reproduced, and further including, without
limitation, any papers, books, accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono
records, plans, blueprints, telexes, telegrams, electronic or videotape recordings, and any
other data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated into
reasonably usable form _ original electronic format.
“Relating to” and “relates to” mean, without limitation, embodying, mentioning,
regarding, or concerning, directly or indirectly, the subject matter identified.
*Concerning” means, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, referring to, relating to,
connected with, commenting on, responding to, showing, describing, analyzing,
reflecting, and constituting.
“Communication” “communications” means any oral or written communication.
“Tdentify," when used relating to a person, means to provide the person’s full name; the
present or last known residential address and residential telephone number; the present or
last known office address and office telephone number; the occupation, job title, and
employer’s address at the time of the incident referenced in the request; and, in the case
of any entity, identify the officer, employee, or agent most closely connected with the
subject matter of the request and the officer who is responsible for supervising that
officer or employee.
"Identify," when used relating to an organization or business entity ("organization"),
means to provide the name, address, telephone number of the organization, and the names
and titles of the persons within the organization with whom you have communicated or
consulted relating to matters relevant to this Lawsuit, your claim or your alleged damages
claimed in this Lawsuit.
"Identify," when used relating to a document means to give a brief description of the
contents of the document, state the purpose of the document, and provide the name,
address and telephone number of the person who drafted the document, and the name,
address and telephone number of the person who last had possession of the document.
The words “and” and “o1 each mean and/or.
The words “any” and “all” each mean any and all.
“Property” means the real property and improvements located at 1734 Bolsover St.,
Houston, Texas 77005
Underlying Lawsuit is intended to mean the following lawsuit: Cause No. 16 DCV
234166; ClydeJ. Moore v. Todd Tanner, in the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend
County, Texas.
Judgment” is intended to mean the Final Judgment entered in the Underlying Lawsuit on
September 10, 2021 in favor of Todd Tanner and against Clyde J. Moore, a copy of
which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit
Abstract of Judgment is intended to mean the Abstract of Judgment recorded in the real
property records of Harris County, Texas on September 21, 2021 at Clerk’s File No. RP
541325, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as
Exhibit B.
Affidavit as to Debts and Liens” is intended to mean that certain Affidavit as to Debts
and Liens executed by Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore on January 3, 2022, a
copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit C.
Earnest Money Contract” is intended to mean that certain One to Four Family
Residential Contract (Resale) by and between Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore,
as sellers, and Edward Zajicek and Colleen Zajicek, as buyers relating to the property
located at 1734 Bolsover St., Houston, Texas 77005.
“Deed” is intended to mean the General Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien executed by
Clyde J. Moore and Ca sandra v. Moore, as grantors, to Edward Zajicek, as buyer, and
recorded in the real property records of Harris County, Texas on January 5, 2022 at
Clerk’s File No. RP 2022
The time period covered by these requests includes all relevant time periods subject to
this lawsuit.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages
between Defendants and their real estate agent, regarding the Property, the Underlying Lawsuit,
the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the closing of
the sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages
between Defendants and ORT regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment,
the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of the
sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages
between Defendants and Todd Tanner regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of
Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the
closing of the sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages
between fendants and the Buyers regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of
Judgment, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of the
sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages
between Defendants and any other person or entity regarding the Property, the Judgment, the
Abstract of Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and
Liens, the closing of the sale of the Property
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondences, including but not limited to notices, relating to the Judgment
you received from any source.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondences, including but not limited to notices, relating to the Abstract
of Judgment you received from any source.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO
Please produce all listing agreements related to your sale of the Property
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce a copy of any offers to purchase the Property you received from January 1, 2021
through December 7, 2021.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you disclosed the Judgment to ORT prior to the closing of the sale of the
Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you disclosed the Abstract of Judgment to ORT prior to the closing of the
sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you disclosed the Judgment to the Buyers prior to the closing of the sale of
the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you disclosed the Abstract of Judgment to the Buyers prior to the closing of
the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Judgment to ORT prior to the
closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Abstract of Judgment to ORT
prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your
contention
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Judgment to the Buyers prior to
the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Abstract of Judgment to the
Buyers prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting
your contention
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1
Please produce all documents you executed in connection with your sale of the Property to the
Buyers.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all documents you provided to ORT in connection with your sale of the Property
to the Buyers.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all documents you received from ORT in connection with your sale of the
Property to the Buyers.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all documents you received from the Buyers in connection with your sale of the
Property to the Buyers.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all demands for payment you received from Todd Tanner and/or an attorney for
Todd Tanner relating to the Judgment or Abstract of Judgment.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all notices of foreclosure sale and/or notices of intent to foreclose from Todd
Tanner and/or an attorney for Todd Tanner relating to the Property.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondences you received from Todd Tanner and/or an attorney for Todd
Tanner from September 1, 2021 through January 3, 2022.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all correspondences you and/or anyone on your behalf sent to Todd Tanner
and/or an attorney for Todd Tanner from September 1, 2021 through January 3
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce any and all documents you received from any third parties in response to a
subpoena and/or document request.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
Please produce all documents and tangible things, including reports, models, compilations of
data, and other material prepared by an expert or for an expert in anticipation of the expert’s trial
and deposition testimony.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
Please produce all photographs, videos, sketches, renderings, surveys, or blueprints which in any
way, illustrate or demonstrate any of your claims or defenses in this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
Please produce all settlement agreements, releases, checks, wire transfers, letter agreements,
Rule 11 Agreements, money orders, annuities or other documents indicating that any party has
settled or compromised any claim which has been asserted, or could have been asserted, in this
lawsuit or the lawsuit related to the claims at issue in this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
To the extent you have been a party to any civil or criminal lawsuit, other than the Underlying
Lawsuit, please produce the most recent live pleading in any such lawsuit
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Please produce all exhibits you intend to offer at a hearing or trial.
RESPONSE:
CAUSE NO. DCV 292653
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
TODD TANNER, CLYDE J. MOORE,
AND CASSANDRA MOORE
Defendants. 458TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
TO Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore, by and through their counsel of
record, Paul M. Sullivan, The Law Office of Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC, 6602 Westview
Drive, Houston, Texas 77055
Pursuant to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company (‘Plaintiff’ or “ORT”) serves this First Set of Interrogatories
Defendant Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore (“Defendant ” or “Moores PPG must
answer each interrogatory separately, fully, in writing, and under oath within 30 days after
service. PPG shall supplement all responses to these Interrogatories as required by Rule 193.5 of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
RELAN ANIEL PLLC
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Bradford W. Irelan
State Bar No. 10411550
birelan@IMTexasLaw.com
Jacob M. Stephens
State Bar No. 24066143
jstephens@IMTexasLaw.com
2520 Caroline St., 2nd Floor
Houston, Texas 77004
(713) 222 Telephone
(713) 222 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on January 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as indicated
below:
Paul M. Sullivan Via Electronic Service
paul.sullivan@psullivanlawfirm.com
The Law Office of
Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC
6602 Westview Drive
Houston, TX 77055
/s/ Jacob M. Stephens
Jacob M. Stephens
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
“Document” or “documents” means all written, typed, or printed matter and all magnetic,
electronic, or other records or documentation of any kind or description in your actual
possession, custody, or control, including those in the possession, custody, or control of
any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, consultants, accountants,
attorneys, or other agents, whether or not prepared by you, that constitute or contain
matters relevant to the subject matter of the action. This includes any handwritten,
typewritten, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, photocopied, photostatic,
telecopier, filmed, microfilmed, or otherwise prepared matter, including without
limitation, drafts, however produced or reproduced, and further including, without
limitation, any papers, books, accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono
records, plans, blueprints, telexes, telegrams, electronic or videotape recordings, and any
other data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated into
reasonably usable form _ original electronic format.
“Relating to” and “relates to” mean, without limitation, embodying, mentioning,
regarding, or concerning, directly or indirectly, the subject matter identified.
*Concerning” means, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, referring to, relating to,
connected with, commenting on, responding to, showing, describing, analyzing,
reflecting, and constituting.
“Communication” “communications” means any oral or written communication.
“Tdentify," when used relating to a person, means to provide the person’s full name; the
present or last known residential address and residential telephone number; the present or
last known office address and office telephone number; the occupation, job title, and
employer’s address at the time of the incident referenced in the request; and, in the case
of any entity, identify the officer, employee, or agent most closely connected with the
subject matter of the request and the officer who is responsible for supervising that
officer or employee.
"Identify," when used relating to an organization or business entity ("organization"),
means to provide the name, address, telephone number of the organization, and the names
and titles of the persons within the organization with whom you have communicated or
consulted relating to matters relevant to this Lawsuit, your claim or your alleged damages
claimed in this Lawsuit.
"Identify," when used relating to a document means to give a brief description of the
contents of the document, state the purpose of the document, and provide the name,
address and telephone number of the person who drafted the document, and the name,
address and telephone number of the person who last had possession of the document.
The words “and” and “o1 each mean and/or.
The words “any” and “all” each mean any and all.
“Property” means the real property and improvements located at 1734 Bolsover St.,
Houston, Texas 77005
Underlying Lawsuit is intended to mean the following lawsuit: Cause No. 16 DCV
234166; ClydeJ. Moore v. Todd Tanner, in the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend
County, Texas.
Judgment” is intended to mean the Final Judgment entered in the Underlying Lawsuit on
September 10, 2021 in favor of Todd Tanner and against Clyde J. Moore, a copy of
which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit A.
Abstract of Judgment” is intended to mean the Abstract of Judgment recorded in the real
property records of Harris County, Texas on September 21, 2021 at Clerk’s File No. RP
541325, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as
Exhibit B.
Affidavit as to Debts and Liens” is intended to mean that certain Affidavit as to Debts
and Liens executed by Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore on January 3, 2022, a
copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit C.
Earnest Money Contract” is intended to mean that certain One to Four Family
Residential Contract (Resale) by and between Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore,
as sellers, and Edward Zajicek and Colleen Zajicek, as buyers relating to the property
located at 1734 Bolsover St., Houston, Texas 77005.
“Deed” is intended to mean the General Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien executed by
Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra v. Moore, as grantors, to Edward Zajicek, as buyer, and
recorded in the real property records of Harris County, Texas on January 5, 2022 at
Clerk’s File No. RP 2022
The time period covered by these requests includes all relevant time periods subject to
this lawsuit.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.
Please describe each conversation, meeting and/or communication that you have had with ORT
regarding the Property, the Underlying Lawsuit, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the
Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of your sale of the Property to the Buyers, and/or
any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. In connection with this Interrogatory, please
identify whether such communications were oral or written, the nature of such communications,
the date of such communication, the place of such communication and the time.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.
Please describe each conversation, meeting and/or communication that you have had with Todd
Tanner and/or counsel for Todd Tanner regarding the Property, the Underlying Lawsuit, the
Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of your sale
of the Property to the Buyers, and/or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. In
connection with this Interrogatory, please identify whether such communications were oral or
written, the nature of such communications, the date of such communication, the place of such
communication and the ti
Preview
CAUSE NO. 22 292653 EDWARD ZAJICEK, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COLLEEN ZAJICEK, AND UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC Vv FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS TODD TANNER, CLYDE J. MOORE, AND CASSANDRA MOORE TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS CLYDE J. MOORE AND CASSANDRA MOORE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (“Plaintiff’ or “ORT”) files this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra Moore (“Defendants” or “Moores”), and in support thereof, respectfully show the following: SUMMARY OF MOTION Plaintiff served written discovery requests on Defendant . After nearly five months since served the requests, Defendant have failed to provide sufficient information or produce documents responsive to all of Plaintiff's requests. Moreover, Defendant have lodged dilatory and invalid objections to all of Plaintiff's requests. Therefore, this Court should grant Plaintiffs Motion and order the relief requested herein. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Exhibit A Plaintiff's Written Discovery Requests to Defendant Exhibit B Defendant Responses to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. Exhibit C Defendants Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories Exhibit Defendant Clyde J. Moore’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Requests for Admissions Exhibit E Defendant Cassandra Moore’s Reponses to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions Exhibit F Plaintiff's discovery deficiency letter to Defendants BACKGROUND On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff served its First Requests for Production, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Requests for Admissions on Defendant . See Ex. A. Defendant served their objections and responses on March 1, 2023. See Ex .B Defendants responses, however, were wholly deficient and all objections were invalid. /d. Further, Defendant failed to produce any responsive documents. Thereafter, Plaintiff sent Defendants counsel a deficiency letter, setting forth the multiple deficiencies with Defendant's discovery responses. See Ex. F. However, Defendants never amended nor supplemented their responses, nor did they produce any responsive documents. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant Plaintiffs Motion; overrule Defendants’ blanket objections; overrule Defendants objections to all Requests for Production; compel Defendants to supplement their responses to all Requests for Production; produce all responsive documents; overrule Defendants’ objections to Interrogatories; compel Defendant to individually answer all Interrogatories deem the Requests for Admission admitted, or alternatively, overrule Defendants’ objections to Requests for Admission and compel Defendants to answer all Requests for Admission LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES EFENDANTS MPROPER LANKET BJECTIONS In response to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Requests for Admission, Defendants improperly lodged the following blanket objections. See Ex. B at 4; Ex. C at 3 4; Ex. D at 3 4; and Ex. E at3 Under the Texas Rules of Procedure, a party must respond to each request in writing and the corresponding request must precede the response or objection. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1. Moreover, the responding party must state specifically the legal or factual basis for his or her objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). A party may not make a blanket objection to all discovery, but must state an objection to each individual discovery request. See Burton v. West, 749 S.W.2d 505, 507 08 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendants’ blanket objections and compel Defendants to respond to each separate written discovery request. FENDANTS ESPONSES TO LAINTIFF S IRST EQUESTS FOR RODUCTION Defendants’ Failure to Produce Documents Defendants wholly failed to produce any documents responsive to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production. “A person is required to produce a document or tangible thing that is within the person’s possession, custody, or control.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(b). As stated by the Texas Supreme Court, “[p]ossession, custody, or control of an item means that the person either has physical possession of the item or has a right to possession of the item that is equal or superior to the person who has physical possession LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. of the item.” In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Tex. 2003). As such, Defendants must produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. Defendants Objection Regarding Overly Broad, Unduly Burdensome and Expensive In response to each of Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Defendants lodge the same objection that “Defendants object to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and expensive...” See Ex. B. “A request is not over broad so long as it is reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case.” In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, (Tex. 2016) (internal quotations omitted); see also In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). Each request propounded by Plaintiff has been reasonably tailored to only include matters relevant to this case. Plaintiff has brought claims against Defendants for their failure to disclose and/or active concealment of the judgment lien against Defendant Clyde J. Moore (“Jerry”), which encumbered the subject property. Plaintiff has proper y requested correspondence, agreements, offers, and documents that only relate to its claims and Defendants’ defenses. As such, none of the requests are “overly broad.” Moreover, “[a]ny party who seeks to exclude matters from discovery on grounds that the requested information is unduly burdensome, costly or harassing to produce, has the affirmative duty to plead and prove the work necessary to comply with discovery.” Independent Insulating Glass/Southwest, Inc. v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798, 802 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1987, writ dism’d). Conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is unduly burdensome are not permissible. In re Alford Chevrolet Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex. 1999). Defendants have not provided any evidence to support LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. their claim that production of the requested documents is “unduly burdensome” and “expensive.” Therefore, Defendants objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Production that each request is “overly broad, unduly burdensome and expensive should be overruled and Defendants should be compelled to produce all responsive documents to each of Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos. 1 Defendants’ Objection Regarding Private Information Further, in response to Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1 , ; and Defendants claim Plaintiff's requests seek “private information,” and/or the requests are “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and financial information...” See Ex. B. The party who seeks to limit discovery by asserting that the information sought is private has the burden of producing evidence to support its assertion. In re Crestcare Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 222 S.W.3d 68, 73 (Tex. App. Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding). Conclusory allegations will not meet this burden. /d. at 74. A party asserting that privacy rights protect information from disclosure must present evidence showing a particular, articulated and demonstrable injury. /d. Accordingly, Defendants cannot claim that the RFP Nos. 1 5 and 8 seek private information without producing any evidence that the correspondence contains private information. Therefore, Defendants’ objections regarding privacy in response to RFP Nos. 1 , , 10 should be overruled and Defendants should be compelled to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests. Defendants’ Vague Objection In response to Plaintiffs RFP Nos. 1 5, Defendants lodge the following objection: “Defendants object to this request on the grounds the phrase ‘all LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between Defendants and their real estate agent/ORT/Todd Tanner/Buyers/any other person’ is vague and is not limited by time or scope.” This objection is entirely unfounded. The term “correspondence” is a common word meaning communication by exchanging letters, emails, or other messages. See “Correspondence,” Merriam Webster.com. In fact, in each request Plaintiff defines “correspondence” to include, but not be limited to, “emails and text messages.” Surely, even if the word “correspondence” alone is somehow “vague,” Defendants would understand that Plaintiff is seeking the production of written communications when Plaintiff further states that it is seeking “emails and text messages”. Thus, Defendants’ objection that Plaintiffs RFP Nos. 1 5 are vague is entirely meritless. Additionally, the “definitions and instructions” portion of Plaintiff's requests specifically states in Definition No. 17 that “The time period covered by these requests includes all relevant time periods subject to this lawsuit.” Clearly, Plaintiff is not seeking correspondence outside the relevant time periods. Therefore, Defendants’ objection that RFP Nos. 1 5 are not limited in time and scope is unfounded and should be overruled. Defendants should be compelled to produce the requested correspondence to Plaintiff. Moreover, in response to RFP Nos. 1 5, Defendants object that Plaintiff's request for correspondence related to “any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit” is vague and ambiguous. However, the fact that Plaintiff is requesting correspondence related to the basis of this lawsuit shows that the request itself is limited to only those matters relevant to this lawsuit. As stated above, this objection should be overruled and LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. Plaintiff is entitled to the production of documents relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants’ Objection that Plaintiff Possesses the Requested Documents n response to RFP Nos. 1 5 and 8 9, Defendants aver that Plaintiff already possesses the requested documents or should seek the requested documents from the public record. See Ex. B. This is impermissible. “Texas law does not allow a party to evade discovery requests by simply asserting that the other party already has the information.” See In re Sting Soccer Grp., LP, No. 05 00317 CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197, 2017 WL 5897454, at *19 (Tex. App. Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.); see also In re Ochoa, No. 12 00163 CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4866, 2004 WL 1192444, at *5 (Tex. Ap Tyler May 28, 2004, no pet.). Accordingly, this objection should overruled. Defendants should be compelled to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production. EFENDANTS NSWERS TO LAINTIFF S IRST ET OF NTERROGATORIES Defendants’ Failure to Answer Interrogatories A responding party must fully answer an interrogatory. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1. An evasive or incomplete answer will be treated as a failure to answer. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(c). Both Jerry and Cassandra Moore (“Cassandra”) failed to provide even one answer in response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. See Ex. C. As such, Defendants must be ordered to supplement their answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. Further, per Rule 197.2(d), Defendants’ answers must be verified. LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. Defendants’ Improper Joint Answer to Interrogatories Each party must provide written answers to interrogatories. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1. Thus, it is impermissible for Jerry and Cassandra to provide a joint answer when Plaintiff served Jerry and Cassandra with separate sets of interrogatories. See Ex. A and Ex. C. As such, Defendants should be compelled to provide separate, verified answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. Defendants’ Bad Faith Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories ursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may object to written discovery only if a good faith factual and legal basis for the objection exists at the time the objection is made.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(c). Clearly, none of Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff's interrogatories were made in good faith. See Ex. C. Each interrogatory propounded on Defendants was narrowly tailored and relevant to the issues of this lawsuit. The fact that Defendants objected without providing any of the requested information confirms that these objections were made in bad faith. As such, Defendants must be compelled to supplement their answers and remove their invalid objections. EFENDANTS AILEDTO ESPONDTO LAINTIFF S IRST EQUESTS FOR DMISSIONS Defendants’ Improperly Objected to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions Jerry and Cassandra both wholly failed to provide a single answer to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions of basic facts and instead lodged dilatory objections seeing to evade responding. As such, this Court should deem all of Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as admitted. LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. A party’s response to a request for admission must: admit, specifically deny, object, explain in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the request, assert a privilege, or move for a protective order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b); see also Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 260 61 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). If part of the request is objectionable and part of the request is not, then the responding party must identify the specific part of the request that is objectionable, make its objection, and then admit or deny the remainder. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2, 198.2(b). Moreover, the responding party must state specifically the legal or factual basis for its objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a). Boilerplate objections are impermissible; when the responding party objects, it must specifically demonstrate how each request is objectionable. See In re Alford Chevrolet Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex. 1999) (finding that a party that resists discovery “cannot simply make conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is unduly burdensome or unnecessarily harassing.”). Moreover, as stated above, it is impermissible to object that a party already possesses the requested documents or should seek the requested documents from the public record. See In re Sting Soccer Grp., LP, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197, at *19; see also In re Ochoa, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4866, at *5. If the responding party fails to meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198, the trial court has discretion to deem the matter admitted or require the responding party to amend its response. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.4(a); see also Taylor v. LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. Taylor, 747 S.W.2d 940, 945 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1988, writ denied) (“having found there was no proper response to the requests and that the answer and objections to the requests did not satisfy the requirements of the rule, the court was authorized, if not required, by the rules to deem the matters admitted”). The trial court may also treat evasive or incomplete responses to requests for admissions as deemed admissions. Guzman v. Carnevale, 964 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Here, neither Jerry nor Cassandra provided a response to any of Plaintiff's First Requests for Admission. Instead, they categorically objected to each request. As such, this Court should deem the Requests for Admissions admitted or, in the alternative, Defendants should be compelled to amend their respective responses to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER After Plaintiff served its written discovery requests on Defendant January 31, 2023, Defendant refused to fully answer, respond, and provide responsive documents to Plaintiff's requests. Accordingly, this Court must grant Plaintiff's Motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Old Republic National Title Insurance Company requests this Court grant its Motion; overrule Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra Moore’s blanket objections; overrule Defendants objections to all Requests for Production; mpel Defendants to supplement their responses to all Requests for Production; produce all responsive documents; overrule Defendants’ objections to Interrogatories; compel Defendant to individually answer all Interrogatories overrule Defendants’ objections to Requests for Admission; and compel Defendants to answer all Requests for Admission.; and for all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled. LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. Respectfully submitted, IRELAN McDANIEL, PLLC /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Bradford W. lIrelan State Bar No. 10411550 birelan@IMTexasLaw.com Jacob M. Stephens State Bar No. 24066143 jstephens@IMTexasLaw.com 2520 Caroline St., 2nd Floor Houston, Texas 77004 (713) 222 7666 Telephone (713) 222 7669 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE | hereby certify that | have attempted to confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding the relief requested in this motion, but have been unable to reach a resolution without court intervention. It is presumed that Defendants are opposed to the relief requested herein. /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Jacob M. Stephens CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | certify that on June 30, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as indicated below: Wendell A. Odom, Jr. Via Electronic Service wendellodom@aol.com ODOM, DAVIS & HOBSON 440 Louisiana St., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Andy Taylor Via Electronic Service ataylor@andytaylorlaw.com ANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2628 Highway 36S, #288 Brenham, TX 77833 /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Jacob M. Stephens LAINTIFFS OTIONTO OMPEL ISCOVERY ROM EFENDANTS. EXHIBIT A CAUSE NO. DCV 292653 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS TODD TANNER, CLYDE J. MOORE, AND CASSANDRA MOORE Defendants. 458TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT TO Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore, by and through their counsel of record, Paul M. Sullivan, The Law Office of Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC, 6602 Westview Drive, Houston, Texas 77055 Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (“Plaintiff or “ORT”) serve these Requests for Production Defendant Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore (“Defendant ” or “Moores Defendants must answer each request separately, fully, in writing, and within 30 days after service. Defendants shall supplement all responses to these requests as required by Rule 193.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, RELAN ANIEL PLLC /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Bradford W. Irelan State Bar No. 10411550 birelan@IMTexasLaw.com Jacob M. Stephens State Bar No. 24066143 jstephens@IMTexasLaw.com 2520 Caroline St., 2nd Floor Houston, Texas 77004 (713) 222 Telephone (713) 222 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as indicated below: Paul M. Sullivan Via Electronic Service paul.sullivan@psullivanlawfirm.com The Law Office of Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC 6602 Westview Drive Houston, TX 77055 /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Jacob M. Stephens DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS “Document” or “documents” means all written, typed, or printed matter and all magnetic, electronic, or other records or documentation of any kind or description in your actual possession, custody, or control, including those in the possession, custody, or control of any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other agents, whether or not prepared by you, that constitute or contain matters relevant to the subject matter of the action. This includes any handwritten, typewritten, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, photocopied, photostatic, telecopier, filmed, microfilmed, or otherwise prepared matter, including without limitation, drafts, however produced or reproduced, and further including, without limitation, any papers, books, accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono records, plans, blueprints, telexes, telegrams, electronic or videotape recordings, and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated into reasonably usable form _ original electronic format. “Relating to” and “relates to” mean, without limitation, embodying, mentioning, regarding, or concerning, directly or indirectly, the subject matter identified. *Concerning” means, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, referring to, relating to, connected with, commenting on, responding to, showing, describing, analyzing, reflecting, and constituting. “Communication” “communications” means any oral or written communication. “Tdentify," when used relating to a person, means to provide the person’s full name; the present or last known residential address and residential telephone number; the present or last known office address and office telephone number; the occupation, job title, and employer’s address at the time of the incident referenced in the request; and, in the case of any entity, identify the officer, employee, or agent most closely connected with the subject matter of the request and the officer who is responsible for supervising that officer or employee. "Identify," when used relating to an organization or business entity ("organization"), means to provide the name, address, telephone number of the organization, and the names and titles of the persons within the organization with whom you have communicated or consulted relating to matters relevant to this Lawsuit, your claim or your alleged damages claimed in this Lawsuit. "Identify," when used relating to a document means to give a brief description of the contents of the document, state the purpose of the document, and provide the name, address and telephone number of the person who drafted the document, and the name, address and telephone number of the person who last had possession of the document. The words “and” and “o1 each mean and/or. The words “any” and “all” each mean any and all. “Property” means the real property and improvements located at 1734 Bolsover St., Houston, Texas 77005 Underlying Lawsuit is intended to mean the following lawsuit: Cause No. 16 DCV 234166; ClydeJ. Moore v. Todd Tanner, in the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. Judgment” is intended to mean the Final Judgment entered in the Underlying Lawsuit on September 10, 2021 in favor of Todd Tanner and against Clyde J. Moore, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit Abstract of Judgment is intended to mean the Abstract of Judgment recorded in the real property records of Harris County, Texas on September 21, 2021 at Clerk’s File No. RP 541325, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit B. Affidavit as to Debts and Liens” is intended to mean that certain Affidavit as to Debts and Liens executed by Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore on January 3, 2022, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit C. Earnest Money Contract” is intended to mean that certain One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) by and between Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore, as sellers, and Edward Zajicek and Colleen Zajicek, as buyers relating to the property located at 1734 Bolsover St., Houston, Texas 77005. “Deed” is intended to mean the General Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien executed by Clyde J. Moore and Ca sandra v. Moore, as grantors, to Edward Zajicek, as buyer, and recorded in the real property records of Harris County, Texas on January 5, 2022 at Clerk’s File No. RP 2022 The time period covered by these requests includes all relevant time periods subject to this lawsuit. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between Defendants and their real estate agent, regarding the Property, the Underlying Lawsuit, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the closing of the sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between Defendants and ORT regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of the sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between Defendants and Todd Tanner regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of the sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between fendants and the Buyers regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of the sale of the Property, or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and text messages between Defendants and any other person or entity regarding the Property, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Buyers, the Earnest Money Contract, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of the sale of the Property RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondences, including but not limited to notices, relating to the Judgment you received from any source. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondences, including but not limited to notices, relating to the Abstract of Judgment you received from any source. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO Please produce all listing agreements related to your sale of the Property RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce a copy of any offers to purchase the Property you received from January 1, 2021 through December 7, 2021. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you disclosed the Judgment to ORT prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you disclosed the Abstract of Judgment to ORT prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you disclosed the Judgment to the Buyers prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you disclosed the Abstract of Judgment to the Buyers prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Judgment to ORT prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Abstract of Judgment to ORT prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Judgment to the Buyers prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. If you contend that you did not have an obligation to disclose the Abstract of Judgment to the Buyers prior to the closing of the sale of the Property, please produce all documents supporting your contention RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 Please produce all documents you executed in connection with your sale of the Property to the Buyers. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all documents you provided to ORT in connection with your sale of the Property to the Buyers. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all documents you received from ORT in connection with your sale of the Property to the Buyers. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all documents you received from the Buyers in connection with your sale of the Property to the Buyers. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all demands for payment you received from Todd Tanner and/or an attorney for Todd Tanner relating to the Judgment or Abstract of Judgment. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all notices of foreclosure sale and/or notices of intent to foreclose from Todd Tanner and/or an attorney for Todd Tanner relating to the Property. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondences you received from Todd Tanner and/or an attorney for Todd Tanner from September 1, 2021 through January 3, 2022. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all correspondences you and/or anyone on your behalf sent to Todd Tanner and/or an attorney for Todd Tanner from September 1, 2021 through January 3 RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce any and all documents you received from any third parties in response to a subpoena and/or document request. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Please produce all documents and tangible things, including reports, models, compilations of data, and other material prepared by an expert or for an expert in anticipation of the expert’s trial and deposition testimony. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Please produce all photographs, videos, sketches, renderings, surveys, or blueprints which in any way, illustrate or demonstrate any of your claims or defenses in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Please produce all settlement agreements, releases, checks, wire transfers, letter agreements, Rule 11 Agreements, money orders, annuities or other documents indicating that any party has settled or compromised any claim which has been asserted, or could have been asserted, in this lawsuit or the lawsuit related to the claims at issue in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. To the extent you have been a party to any civil or criminal lawsuit, other than the Underlying Lawsuit, please produce the most recent live pleading in any such lawsuit RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Please produce all exhibits you intend to offer at a hearing or trial. RESPONSE: CAUSE NO. DCV 292653 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS TODD TANNER, CLYDE J. MOORE, AND CASSANDRA MOORE Defendants. 458TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TO Defendants Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore, by and through their counsel of record, Paul M. Sullivan, The Law Office of Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC, 6602 Westview Drive, Houston, Texas 77055 Pursuant to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (‘Plaintiff’ or “ORT”) serves this First Set of Interrogatories Defendant Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra Moore (“Defendant ” or “Moores PPG must answer each interrogatory separately, fully, in writing, and under oath within 30 days after service. PPG shall supplement all responses to these Interrogatories as required by Rule 193.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, RELAN ANIEL PLLC /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Bradford W. Irelan State Bar No. 10411550 birelan@IMTexasLaw.com Jacob M. Stephens State Bar No. 24066143 jstephens@IMTexasLaw.com 2520 Caroline St., 2nd Floor Houston, Texas 77004 (713) 222 Telephone (713) 222 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as indicated below: Paul M. Sullivan Via Electronic Service paul.sullivan@psullivanlawfirm.com The Law Office of Paul M. Sullivan, PLLC 6602 Westview Drive Houston, TX 77055 /s/ Jacob M. Stephens Jacob M. Stephens DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS “Document” or “documents” means all written, typed, or printed matter and all magnetic, electronic, or other records or documentation of any kind or description in your actual possession, custody, or control, including those in the possession, custody, or control of any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other agents, whether or not prepared by you, that constitute or contain matters relevant to the subject matter of the action. This includes any handwritten, typewritten, printed, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, photocopied, photostatic, telecopier, filmed, microfilmed, or otherwise prepared matter, including without limitation, drafts, however produced or reproduced, and further including, without limitation, any papers, books, accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono records, plans, blueprints, telexes, telegrams, electronic or videotape recordings, and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated into reasonably usable form _ original electronic format. “Relating to” and “relates to” mean, without limitation, embodying, mentioning, regarding, or concerning, directly or indirectly, the subject matter identified. *Concerning” means, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, referring to, relating to, connected with, commenting on, responding to, showing, describing, analyzing, reflecting, and constituting. “Communication” “communications” means any oral or written communication. “Tdentify," when used relating to a person, means to provide the person’s full name; the present or last known residential address and residential telephone number; the present or last known office address and office telephone number; the occupation, job title, and employer’s address at the time of the incident referenced in the request; and, in the case of any entity, identify the officer, employee, or agent most closely connected with the subject matter of the request and the officer who is responsible for supervising that officer or employee. "Identify," when used relating to an organization or business entity ("organization"), means to provide the name, address, telephone number of the organization, and the names and titles of the persons within the organization with whom you have communicated or consulted relating to matters relevant to this Lawsuit, your claim or your alleged damages claimed in this Lawsuit. "Identify," when used relating to a document means to give a brief description of the contents of the document, state the purpose of the document, and provide the name, address and telephone number of the person who drafted the document, and the name, address and telephone number of the person who last had possession of the document. The words “and” and “o1 each mean and/or. The words “any” and “all” each mean any and all. “Property” means the real property and improvements located at 1734 Bolsover St., Houston, Texas 77005 Underlying Lawsuit is intended to mean the following lawsuit: Cause No. 16 DCV 234166; ClydeJ. Moore v. Todd Tanner, in the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. Judgment” is intended to mean the Final Judgment entered in the Underlying Lawsuit on September 10, 2021 in favor of Todd Tanner and against Clyde J. Moore, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit A. Abstract of Judgment” is intended to mean the Abstract of Judgment recorded in the real property records of Harris County, Texas on September 21, 2021 at Clerk’s File No. RP 541325, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit B. Affidavit as to Debts and Liens” is intended to mean that certain Affidavit as to Debts and Liens executed by Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore on January 3, 2022, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions as Exhibit C. Earnest Money Contract” is intended to mean that certain One to Four Family Residential Contract (Resale) by and between Clyde J. Moore and Cassandra V. Moore, as sellers, and Edward Zajicek and Colleen Zajicek, as buyers relating to the property located at 1734 Bolsover St., Houston, Texas 77005. “Deed” is intended to mean the General Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien executed by Clyde J. Moore and Cas andra v. Moore, as grantors, to Edward Zajicek, as buyer, and recorded in the real property records of Harris County, Texas on January 5, 2022 at Clerk’s File No. RP 2022 The time period covered by these requests includes all relevant time periods subject to this lawsuit. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. Please describe each conversation, meeting and/or communication that you have had with ORT regarding the Property, the Underlying Lawsuit, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of your sale of the Property to the Buyers, and/or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. In connection with this Interrogatory, please identify whether such communications were oral or written, the nature of such communications, the date of such communication, the place of such communication and the time. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. Please describe each conversation, meeting and/or communication that you have had with Todd Tanner and/or counsel for Todd Tanner regarding the Property, the Underlying Lawsuit, the Judgment, the Abstract of Judgment, the Affidavit as to Debts and Liens, the closing of your sale of the Property to the Buyers, and/or any other matter made the basis of this lawsuit. In connection with this Interrogatory, please identify whether such communications were oral or written, the nature of such communications, the date of such communication, the place of such communication and the ti