Preview
FILED
6/20/2023 5:35 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Cassandra Walker DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-13664
BOBBY GENE CHESTNUT, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Plaintiff,
V.
HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS,
LLC, BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE,
INC., BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE
HOLDINGS, LLC, BUILDERS 19lsT JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FIRSTSOURCE - ATLANTIC GROUP,
LLC DBA BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE,
BFS GROUP LLC (formerly
PROBUILD COMPANY LLC) DBA
BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, and BFS
ASSET HOLDINGS LLC DBA
BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, LLC’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, BOBBY GENE CHESTNUT, Plaintiff in the above styled and numbered
cause, and files this Motion to Compel Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’s
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and for cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following:
I.
BACKGROUND
1.1 On or about February 28, 2023, Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC
was served with Plaintiff’ s First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff’ s First Request for Production.
1.2 Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’s responses were received on
March 30, 2023, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein for all purposes.
II.
DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS. LLC’S RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION — EXHIBIT A
2.1 Requests for Production numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37,
43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 were improperly objected to and/or incompletely or inadequately answered,
with not all responsive documents being provided.
III.
UNDUE HARDSHIP
3.1 Plaintiff urges that there exists a substantial need of the materials and information requested
prior to the taking of the depositions, and that Plaintiff is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain
the substantial equivalent of the materials or information by other means. Thus, pursuant to Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure 196 and 199.2, Plaintiff requests the Defendant be required to respond to
discovery requests of the Plaintiff.
IV.
REASONABLY CALCULATED
4.1 The information sought is important to Plaintiff s discovery in this case and reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant HMCI
GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC be required to completely and accurately respond to the
discovery propounded by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further prays that Defendant HMCI GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, LLC be required to respond in full within 5 days and for all other relief as
they may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THE HERRERA LAW FIRM, INC.
Herrera Plaza
1800 W. Commerce Street
San Antonio, Texas 78207
Telephone: (210) 224 1054
Facsimile: (210) 228 0887
By /S/ LAURA
TAMEZ
LAURA TAMEZ
State Bar No. 00793869
ltamez@herrerralaw.com
JORGE A. HERRERA
State Bar No. 24044242
iherrera@herreralaw.com
LORENA FERNANDEZ
State Bar No. 24124796
lfernandez(a)herreralaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Plaintiffs counsel has conferred with opposing counsel for Defendant regarding the above-
mentioned discovery responses and an agreement could not be reached. Therefore, the matter is
presented to the Court for resolution.
ISI LAURA TAMEZ
LAURA TAMEZ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been delivered,
in the required manner, to all counsel of record in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure on this the 19th day of June 2023.
ISI LAURA TAMEZ
LAURA TAMEZ
CAUSE NO. DC-22-13664
BOBBY GENE CHESTNUT § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
V. §
§
HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, § 191“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LLC, BUILDERS FlRSTSOURCE, §
LNC., BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE §
HOLDINGS, LLC, BUILDERS §
FIRSTSOURCE - ATLANTIC GROUP, §
LLC DBA BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, §
BFS GROUP LLC (formerly §
PROBUILD COMPANY LLC) DBA §
BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, and BFS §
ASSET HOLDINGS LLC DBA §
BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO: Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Laura E. Gutierrez Tamez, Jorge A. Herrera,
1800 W. Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207.
COMES NOW, Defendant HMCI General Contractors, LLC (“HMCI”), and submits its
objections and responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production as follows:
Respectfully submitted,
WADDELL SERAFINO GEARY RECHNER JENEVEIN, P.C.
/s/ BryanT. Pope
T.
Bryan Pope
SBN: 16125900
1717 Main Street, 25th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-979-7450
214-979-7402 Fax
bpope@wslaypccom
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 1
EXHIBIT "A"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on
all known counsel of record by the court’s e-filing system, in accordance with the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure, on March 30, 2023.
T. Pope
/s/ Bryan
BRYAN T. POPE
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTURCTIONS
HMCI objects to the definition “documents” as it would be unduly burdensome to collect
documents from every person employed by Defendant to see if they have a copy of a
requested document. Defendant will produce one copy of each requested document.
Defendant further objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
HMCI objects to “identify” when referring to a person when referring to a person, as being
overly broad and unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery as allowed by the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and further would be unreasonable to require this amount of
information to this form of discovery request.
HMCI objects to “identify” when referring to a document, as being overly broad and unduly
burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and further would be unreasonable to require this amount of information to this
form of discovery request.
HMCI objects to “identify” when referring to communications, as being overly broad and
unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure and further would be unreasonable to require this amount of information to
this form of discovery request.
Six Flags objects to definition 6 as to “possession, custody and control” because it is overly
broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as
allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendant objects to providing more than
a basic statement of its contentions as required by TRCP 192.3 (j).
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
A copy of any surveillance movies or photographs which have been made of Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 2
EXHIBIT "A"
including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents,
representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some
responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to
defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers
to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it
necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege.
Subject to these objections, none at this time.
2. Any and all drawings, specs, blueprints, maps or sketches related to the; for the construction
project/ site.
RESPONSE: See HMCIOOOOZ-HMC100008 previously produced.
3. Any and all investigative reports and other such documents produced by any government
agency investigating the incident made the basis of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
Which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges
including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents,
representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some
responsive documents were obtained after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and
to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is
protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege. Defendant objects to this
request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the
scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this
request because the requested documents/tangible things are as equally accessible to Plaintiff as to
Defendant.
4. The Defendant's investigative file and documents therein, including reports, correspondence,
notes, and memorandums prepared prior to the filing of the pending lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to
submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it
necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extentit seeks information/ documentation
Which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/clientprivilege. Defendant objects to this
requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of
discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. The Defendant's investigative file and documents therein, including reports, correspondence,
notes and memorandums prepared prior to your anticipation of litigation of the pending
lawsuit.
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 3
EXHIBIT "A"
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to
submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it
necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extentit seeks information/ documentation
which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/ client privilege. Defendant objects to this
request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of
discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. Any and all photographs of which you have knowledge, either directly or indirectly, or
within the knowledge of your attorneys, of any object relevant to this lawsuit, including but
not limited to any photographs of the scene of the occurrence made the basis of this suit or of
any other fact relevant to any issue in this lawsuit. This request also refers to any movies or
motion pictures as well as still photographs.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to
submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it
necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extentit seeks information/ documentation
which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/ client privilege. Defendant objects to this
request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of
discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
7. All documents that show the identity of any witness to the occurrence made the basis of this
suit or any other person with knowledge of relevant facts concerning the occurrence made
the basis of this suit, the events leading up to it or any damages allegedly sustained by
Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item
or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges
including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents,
representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some
responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to
defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers
to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it
necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege.
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 4
EXHIBIT "A"
8. Any and all documents evidencing or relating to the organizational structure of Defendant.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item
or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
9. Any documents evidencing agreements between this Defendant and any party or non-party
relating to the construction of the construction proj ect/site in question.
RESPONSE: See HMCI l3 and l4 previously produced.
10. Copies of all safety manuals, safety rules, safety policies and safety procedures in effect for
this Defendant or any other defendant applicable to the construction site in question in 2019-
2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
l l. Copies of all policy manuals and/ or instruction manuals regarding fall protection for projects
similar to the one in question in use in 2019-2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
12. Copies of all agreements, contracts or letters of hire between Defendant and Plaintiff
BOBBY CHESTNUT.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
l3. Copies of all policies and/or procedures, manuals or materials containing rules, guidelines,
instructions and/or regulations regarding fall protection/skylight fall protection provided to
Plaintiff prior to his work on the project and in effect in 2019-2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
l4. Copies of operations and/or procedures, manuals or materials containing rules, guidelines,
instructions and/or regulations regarding fall protection/skylight fall protection for the
construction site/ project in question in effect in 2019-2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
15. Copies of all documents evidencing any fall protection/skylight fall protection equipment
leased or utilized at the construction site/project in question from 2019-2020.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item
or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. Subject to this objection, after a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive
documents.
16. Copies of all documents reflecting any lease agreements relating to fall protection in effect
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 5
EXHIBIT "A"
on the date of the incident in question.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
17. Copies of all training manuals or materials used to train employees regarding procedures and
safety relating to fall protection/ skylight fall protection in effect 2019-2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
18. Copies of all photographs, Video tapes, audio tapes and Visual production used to train
employees and/ or agents regarding procedures for usage, service, maintenance and/or repair
of the equipment in question.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
19. Copies of any contracts between Defendant and any contractor pertaining to the job in
question.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
20. Copies of all agreements With any other Defendant regarding the sharing or allocation of
damages, sharing or allocations of expenses, coordination in the jury selection process,
including the process of jury strikes or any other agreement related to contribution,
indemnity or settlement.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
21. Copies of all photographs made by Defendant of the construction site and in question either
before or after the Plaintiff’ s incident.
RESPONSE: See HMCIOOOOZ-HMCIOOOOS previously produced.
22. Copies of all photograph(s), videotape, movie or any other photographic reproduction in
your client's or your possession which were taken by you or by any other individual which
relates in any way to the scene of the accident made the subject of this lawsuit, the
equipment or similar model to the equipment involved in this lawsuit, or any component part
of the aforementioned equipment.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges
including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents,
representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some
responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to
defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers
to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it
necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege.
Subject to these objections, see HMCIOOOO2-I-IlVICIOOOOS previously produced and the video
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 6
EXHIBIT "A"
produced by BFS.
22. Copies of timecards or employee sign-in sheets for those employees working the day of the
incident in question.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
23. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of the contract which was in force on
October 6, 2020, between Defendant and all other subcontractors, together with all parts,
sub-parts, documents incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and which
relate to the construction work in which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT, was engaged.
RESPONSE: See HMCI l3 and l4 previously produced.
24. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of each:
a. Job progress report;
b. Field inspection report;
c. Progress schedule (initial and each updated report) ;Critical Path Method print-out;
d. Progress meeting minutes;
e. Coordination meeting minutes;
f. Scheduling minutes;
g. Special report or memorandum;
h. Defendant’s daily reports;
i. Defendant’s superintendent’s log or daily reports;
j. Change orders;
k. Side note(s) on shop drawing(s) or on the plans and specifications;
l. Safety meeting/tool box safety talk meeting minutes;
m. Fall protection checklists/safety sheets
n. Fall protection documents reflecting equipment available on the day in question
o. Job hazard analysis sheets
p. Documents to include accident reports pertaining to any other personal injuries/death at
this construction project/ site
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item
or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 7
EXHIBIT "A"
Procedure. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects
that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects that this request seeks
documentation which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it would be unduly burdensome to locate,
determine and supply the requested information/documentation and would involve the expenditure
of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and
it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
25. Copies of each job progress photo taken during the life of this project which would
depict the area of this construction project in which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was working at
the time of his injury on October 6, 2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
26. All correspondence between Defendant and all other subcontractors, which relates to this
construction project.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
27. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of the contract which was in force on
October 6, 2020, between Defendant and architect, engineers and management, together with
all parts, subparts, documents incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and
which relate to the construction work in which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was engaged.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
28. All correspondence between Defendant and the owner which relates to this construction
project.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects
that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly
broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed
by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it would be
unduly burdensome to locate, determine and supply the requested information/ documentation and
would involve the expenditure of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects that this
request seeks documentation which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific
document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subject to these objections, see HMCI 13-14.
29. All correspondence between Defendant and the Architect, which relates to this construction
project.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
30. All correspondence between Defendant and any other entity which relates to this
construction project and more specifically, any available fall protection.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this requestbecause it does not request a specific document, item
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 8
EXHIBIT "A"
or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 1 96 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects
that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects that this request seeks
documentation which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it would be unduly burdensome to locate,
determine and supply the requested information/documentation and would involve the expenditure
of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and
it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
31. Acomplete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of all prebid packages,
preconstruction notices, instructions to bidders, or any other documents that were provided to
prospective bidders, contractors, or subcontractors, together with all parts, sub-parts, documents
incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and which relate to the construction site
project on which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was engaged.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
32. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of all subcontracts which were in force on
October 6, 2020, together with all parts, sub-parts, documents incorporated therein by
reference, and revisions thereto, and which relate to the construction site project on which
Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT, was engaged.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
33. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of any and all reports of any injuries which
were sustained by any person during the life of the construction project on which Plaintiff
BOBBY CHESTNUT was engaged.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents involving
unrelated injuries. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation about the
incident in question, which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the
investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of
Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting
experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in
anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this
litigation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation
which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attomey/ client privilege. Defendant objects to this
requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of
discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
34. All electronic mail including message contents,header information and logs of electronic
mail systems usage sent or received by anyone relating to the occurrence in question.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject ofthis litigation. Defendant further objects to this
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 9
EXHIBIT "A"
request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by Virtue
of the attorney/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation Which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Subj ect to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate
litigation.
35. All electronic mail including message contents, header information and logs of electronic
mail systems usage sent or received by anyone relating to safety from the beginning of the
project until the end of the project.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects
that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly
broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed
by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it would be
unduly burdensome to locate, determine and supply the requested information/documentation and
would involve the expenditure of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects that this
request seeks documentation which is not relevant orreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific
document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
36. All word processing files and file fragments containing information about the occurrence in
question at the construction project on which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was working.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant further objects to this
request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by Virtue
of the attorney/client privilege. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Subj ect to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate
litigation.
37. Any and all documents describing safety Violations, or dangerous working conditions
occurring on the construction site from the beginning of the project. (For purposes of your
responses to discovery, please consider the term “safety Violations” to include but not be
limited to any O.S.H.A. Violations, or Violations of any Defendant’s written policy regarding
safety on a work site.)
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
38. A copy of the project manual for the construction project in question.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BFS’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE - 10
EXHIBIT "A"
39. Defendant’s pre-job inspection, tailgate meeting or safety meeting on October 6, 2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
40. Defendant’s Safety Meeting Report to include any Job risk assessments (JRA’s) of
October 6, 2020.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
41. Defendant’s job risk assessments (JRA’S), pre-written or handwritten, pertaining to this
project site.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
42. Personnel training records of the employees for this project site.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
43. A copy of any and all correspondence or documents describing the occurrence in question, or
related to Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT, if said document was created prior to filing of suit
in this cause. [Ifyou claim privilege to any document responsive t0 this request, Plaintifl
respectfully requests you identifi/ all privileged documents in a privilege log as providedfor
by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. ]
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject ofthis litigation. Defendant further objects to this
request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue
of the attomey/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Subject to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate
litigation.
44. A copy of any and all correspondence or documents describing the occurrence in question or
related to the construction proj ect/site in question, regardless of when said document was
created, if the document has ever been disclosed to any person who was not an attorney,
insurer, employee, or investigator of Defendant. [If you claim privilege to any document
responsive to this request, Plaintifi’ respectfully requests you identzfi/ all privileged
documents in a privilege log as provided for by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. ]
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt
from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not
limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives,
employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents
were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BFS’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE - 11
EXHIBIT "A"
Defendant from the claims that are now the subject ofthis litigation. Defendant fiirther objects to this
request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue
of the attomey/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks
information/documentation Which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Subject to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate
litigation.
45. Copies of all insurance policies, whether basic, umbrella or excess, which may be applicable
to pay any judgment in this case or provide any defense in this case.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
46. Copies of Defendant’s OSHA 300/300A Logs for the following years.
a. 2019;
b. 2020; and
c. 2021.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents.
47. Copies of Defendant’s OSHA 200 Logs for the following years:
a. 2019;
b. 2020;
and
c. 2021.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents as these
forms were no longer required at the time inquired about.
HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BFS’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE - 12
EXHIBIT "A"
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.
Yolanda Corrales on behalf of Laura Tamez
Bar No. 793869
ycorrales@herreralaw.com
Envelope ID: 76799974
Filing Code Description: Motion - Compel
Filing Description: PLAINTIFF
Status as of 6/22/2023 3:57 PM CST
Associated Case Party: BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Ian McLin imclin@langleybanack.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Maureen Purcell mpurcell@langleybanack.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Shawn Selvidge sselvidge@langleybanack.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Yolanda Corrales ycorrales@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Laura Tamez Itamez@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Jorge Herrera jherrera@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Elisha Turney eturney@wslawpc.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Lorena Fernandez lfernandez@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Laura Torrez latorrez@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Bryan TPope bpope@wslawpc.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 6/20/2023 5:35 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Cassandra Walker DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-13664 BOBBY GENE CHESTNUT, IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ Plaintiff, V. HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE HOLDINGS, LLC, BUILDERS 19lsT JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRSTSOURCE - ATLANTIC GROUP, LLC DBA BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, BFS GROUP LLC (formerly PROBUILD COMPANY LLC) DBA BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, and BFS ASSET HOLDINGS LLC DBA BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES, BOBBY GENE CHESTNUT, Plaintiff in the above styled and numbered cause, and files this Motion to Compel Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and for cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following: I. BACKGROUND 1.1 On or about February 28, 2023, Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC was served with Plaintiff’ s First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff’ s First Request for Production. 1.2 Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’s responses were received on March 30, 2023, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein for all purposes. II. DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS. LLC’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION — EXHIBIT A 2.1 Requests for Production numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 were improperly objected to and/or incompletely or inadequately answered, with not all responsive documents being provided. III. UNDUE HARDSHIP 3.1 Plaintiff urges that there exists a substantial need of the materials and information requested prior to the taking of the depositions, and that Plaintiff is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials or information by other means. Thus, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196 and 199.2, Plaintiff requests the Defendant be required to respond to discovery requests of the Plaintiff. IV. REASONABLY CALCULATED 4.1 The information sought is important to Plaintiff s discovery in this case and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC be required to completely and accurately respond to the discovery propounded by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further prays that Defendant HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC be required to respond in full within 5 days and for all other relief as they may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, THE HERRERA LAW FIRM, INC. Herrera Plaza 1800 W. Commerce Street San Antonio, Texas 78207 Telephone: (210) 224 1054 Facsimile: (210) 228 0887 By /S/ LAURA TAMEZ LAURA TAMEZ State Bar No. 00793869 ltamez@herrerralaw.com JORGE A. HERRERA State Bar No. 24044242 iherrera@herreralaw.com LORENA FERNANDEZ State Bar No. 24124796 lfernandez(a)herreralaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Plaintiffs counsel has conferred with opposing counsel for Defendant regarding the above- mentioned discovery responses and an agreement could not be reached. Therefore, the matter is presented to the Court for resolution. ISI LAURA TAMEZ LAURA TAMEZ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been delivered, in the required manner, to all counsel of record in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 19th day of June 2023. ISI LAURA TAMEZ LAURA TAMEZ CAUSE NO. DC-22-13664 BOBBY GENE CHESTNUT § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § V. § § HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, § 191“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT LLC, BUILDERS FlRSTSOURCE, § LNC., BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE § HOLDINGS, LLC, BUILDERS § FIRSTSOURCE - ATLANTIC GROUP, § LLC DBA BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, § BFS GROUP LLC (formerly § PROBUILD COMPANY LLC) DBA § BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, and BFS § ASSET HOLDINGS LLC DBA § BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Laura E. Gutierrez Tamez, Jorge A. Herrera, 1800 W. Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207. COMES NOW, Defendant HMCI General Contractors, LLC (“HMCI”), and submits its objections and responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production as follows: Respectfully submitted, WADDELL SERAFINO GEARY RECHNER JENEVEIN, P.C. /s/ BryanT. Pope T. Bryan Pope SBN: 16125900 1717 Main Street, 25th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201 214-979-7450 214-979-7402 Fax bpope@wslaypccom ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 1 EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on all known counsel of record by the court’s e-filing system, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on March 30, 2023. T. Pope /s/ Bryan BRYAN T. POPE OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTURCTIONS HMCI objects to the definition “documents” as it would be unduly burdensome to collect documents from every person employed by Defendant to see if they have a copy of a requested document. Defendant will produce one copy of each requested document. Defendant further objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HMCI objects to “identify” when referring to a person when referring to a person, as being overly broad and unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and further would be unreasonable to require this amount of information to this form of discovery request. HMCI objects to “identify” when referring to a document, as being overly broad and unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and further would be unreasonable to require this amount of information to this form of discovery request. HMCI objects to “identify” when referring to communications, as being overly broad and unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and further would be unreasonable to require this amount of information to this form of discovery request. Six Flags objects to definition 6 as to “possession, custody and control” because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendant objects to providing more than a basic statement of its contentions as required by TRCP 192.3 (j). OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES A copy of any surveillance movies or photographs which have been made of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 2 EXHIBIT "A" including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege. Subject to these objections, none at this time. 2. Any and all drawings, specs, blueprints, maps or sketches related to the; for the construction project/ site. RESPONSE: See HMCIOOOOZ-HMC100008 previously produced. 3. Any and all investigative reports and other such documents produced by any government agency investigating the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation Which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were obtained after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because the requested documents/tangible things are as equally accessible to Plaintiff as to Defendant. 4. The Defendant's investigative file and documents therein, including reports, correspondence, notes, and memorandums prepared prior to the filing of the pending lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extentit seeks information/ documentation Which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/clientprivilege. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. The Defendant's investigative file and documents therein, including reports, correspondence, notes and memorandums prepared prior to your anticipation of litigation of the pending lawsuit. HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 3 EXHIBIT "A" RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extentit seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/ client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Any and all photographs of which you have knowledge, either directly or indirectly, or within the knowledge of your attorneys, of any object relevant to this lawsuit, including but not limited to any photographs of the scene of the occurrence made the basis of this suit or of any other fact relevant to any issue in this lawsuit. This request also refers to any movies or motion pictures as well as still photographs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extentit seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/ client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. All documents that show the identity of any witness to the occurrence made the basis of this suit or any other person with knowledge of relevant facts concerning the occurrence made the basis of this suit, the events leading up to it or any damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege. HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 4 EXHIBIT "A" 8. Any and all documents evidencing or relating to the organizational structure of Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Any documents evidencing agreements between this Defendant and any party or non-party relating to the construction of the construction proj ect/site in question. RESPONSE: See HMCI l3 and l4 previously produced. 10. Copies of all safety manuals, safety rules, safety policies and safety procedures in effect for this Defendant or any other defendant applicable to the construction site in question in 2019- 2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. l l. Copies of all policy manuals and/ or instruction manuals regarding fall protection for projects similar to the one in question in use in 2019-2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 12. Copies of all agreements, contracts or letters of hire between Defendant and Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. l3. Copies of all policies and/or procedures, manuals or materials containing rules, guidelines, instructions and/or regulations regarding fall protection/skylight fall protection provided to Plaintiff prior to his work on the project and in effect in 2019-2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. l4. Copies of operations and/or procedures, manuals or materials containing rules, guidelines, instructions and/or regulations regarding fall protection/skylight fall protection for the construction site/ project in question in effect in 2019-2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 15. Copies of all documents evidencing any fall protection/skylight fall protection equipment leased or utilized at the construction site/project in question from 2019-2020. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to this objection, after a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 16. Copies of all documents reflecting any lease agreements relating to fall protection in effect HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 5 EXHIBIT "A" on the date of the incident in question. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 17. Copies of all training manuals or materials used to train employees regarding procedures and safety relating to fall protection/ skylight fall protection in effect 2019-2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 18. Copies of all photographs, Video tapes, audio tapes and Visual production used to train employees and/ or agents regarding procedures for usage, service, maintenance and/or repair of the equipment in question. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 19. Copies of any contracts between Defendant and any contractor pertaining to the job in question. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 20. Copies of all agreements With any other Defendant regarding the sharing or allocation of damages, sharing or allocations of expenses, coordination in the jury selection process, including the process of jury strikes or any other agreement related to contribution, indemnity or settlement. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 21. Copies of all photographs made by Defendant of the construction site and in question either before or after the Plaintiff’ s incident. RESPONSE: See HMCIOOOOZ-HMCIOOOOS previously produced. 22. Copies of all photograph(s), videotape, movie or any other photographic reproduction in your client's or your possession which were taken by you or by any other individual which relates in any way to the scene of the accident made the subject of this lawsuit, the equipment or similar model to the equipment involved in this lawsuit, or any component part of the aforementioned equipment. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant hereby offers to submit any such documents to the court for an in camera inspection should the court deem it necessary. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attorney/client privilege. Subject to these objections, see HMCIOOOO2-I-IlVICIOOOOS previously produced and the video HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 6 EXHIBIT "A" produced by BFS. 22. Copies of timecards or employee sign-in sheets for those employees working the day of the incident in question. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 23. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of the contract which was in force on October 6, 2020, between Defendant and all other subcontractors, together with all parts, sub-parts, documents incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and which relate to the construction work in which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT, was engaged. RESPONSE: See HMCI l3 and l4 previously produced. 24. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of each: a. Job progress report; b. Field inspection report; c. Progress schedule (initial and each updated report) ;Critical Path Method print-out; d. Progress meeting minutes; e. Coordination meeting minutes; f. Scheduling minutes; g. Special report or memorandum; h. Defendant’s daily reports; i. Defendant’s superintendent’s log or daily reports; j. Change orders; k. Side note(s) on shop drawing(s) or on the plans and specifications; l. Safety meeting/tool box safety talk meeting minutes; m. Fall protection checklists/safety sheets n. Fall protection documents reflecting equipment available on the day in question o. Job hazard analysis sheets p. Documents to include accident reports pertaining to any other personal injuries/death at this construction project/ site RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 7 EXHIBIT "A" Procedure. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects that this request seeks documentation which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it would be unduly burdensome to locate, determine and supply the requested information/documentation and would involve the expenditure of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 25. Copies of each job progress photo taken during the life of this project which would depict the area of this construction project in which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was working at the time of his injury on October 6, 2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 26. All correspondence between Defendant and all other subcontractors, which relates to this construction project. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 27. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of the contract which was in force on October 6, 2020, between Defendant and architect, engineers and management, together with all parts, subparts, documents incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and which relate to the construction work in which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was engaged. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 28. All correspondence between Defendant and the owner which relates to this construction project. RESPONSE: Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it would be unduly burdensome to locate, determine and supply the requested information/ documentation and would involve the expenditure of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects that this request seeks documentation which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see HMCI 13-14. 29. All correspondence between Defendant and the Architect, which relates to this construction project. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 30. All correspondence between Defendant and any other entity which relates to this construction project and more specifically, any available fall protection. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this requestbecause it does not request a specific document, item HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 8 EXHIBIT "A" or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 1 96 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects that this request seeks documentation which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it would be unduly burdensome to locate, determine and supply the requested information/documentation and would involve the expenditure of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 31. Acomplete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of all prebid packages, preconstruction notices, instructions to bidders, or any other documents that were provided to prospective bidders, contractors, or subcontractors, together with all parts, sub-parts, documents incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and which relate to the construction site project on which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was engaged. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 32. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of all subcontracts which were in force on October 6, 2020, together with all parts, sub-parts, documents incorporated therein by reference, and revisions thereto, and which relate to the construction site project on which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT, was engaged. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 33. A complete, accurate, genuine and legible copy of any and all reports of any injuries which were sustained by any person during the life of the construction project on which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was engaged. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents involving unrelated injuries. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation about the incident in question, which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attomey/ client privilege. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/ documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 34. All electronic mail including message contents,header information and logs of electronic mail systems usage sent or received by anyone relating to the occurrence in question. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject ofthis litigation. Defendant further objects to this HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PAGE - 9 EXHIBIT "A" request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by Virtue of the attorney/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation Which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subj ect to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate litigation. 35. All electronic mail including message contents, header information and logs of electronic mail systems usage sent or received by anyone relating to safety from the beginning of the project until the end of the project. RESPONSE: Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in time. Defendant objects that this request is not properly limited in scope. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request because it would be unduly burdensome to locate, determine and supply the requested information/documentation and would involve the expenditure of unreasonable time and expense. Defendant objects that this request seeks documentation which is not relevant orreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request because it does not request a specific document, item or tangible thing with reasonable particularity as is required by Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 36. All word processing files and file fragments containing information about the occurrence in question at the construction project on which Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT was working. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject of this litigation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by Virtue of the attorney/client privilege. Defendant objects to this requestbecause it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subj ect to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate litigation. 37. Any and all documents describing safety Violations, or dangerous working conditions occurring on the construction site from the beginning of the project. (For purposes of your responses to discovery, please consider the term “safety Violations” to include but not be limited to any O.S.H.A. Violations, or Violations of any Defendant’s written policy regarding safety on a work site.) RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 38. A copy of the project manual for the construction project in question. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BFS’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE - 10 EXHIBIT "A" 39. Defendant’s pre-job inspection, tailgate meeting or safety meeting on October 6, 2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 40. Defendant’s Safety Meeting Report to include any Job risk assessments (JRA’s) of October 6, 2020. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 41. Defendant’s job risk assessments (JRA’S), pre-written or handwritten, pertaining to this project site. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 42. Personnel training records of the employees for this project site. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 43. A copy of any and all correspondence or documents describing the occurrence in question, or related to Plaintiff BOBBY CHESTNUT, if said document was created prior to filing of suit in this cause. [Ifyou claim privilege to any document responsive t0 this request, Plaintifl respectfully requests you identifi/ all privileged documents in a privilege log as providedfor by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. ] RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend Defendant from the claims that are now the subject ofthis litigation. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attomey/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate litigation. 44. A copy of any and all correspondence or documents describing the occurrence in question or related to the construction proj ect/site in question, regardless of when said document was created, if the document has ever been disclosed to any person who was not an attorney, insurer, employee, or investigator of Defendant. [If you claim privilege to any document responsive to this request, Plaintifi’ respectfully requests you identzfi/ all privileged documents in a privilege log as provided for by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. ] RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documentation which is exempt from discovery pursuant to the exemption given the investigative privileges including, but not limited to, the exemption given the work product of Defendant; its agents, representatives, employees and attorneys and the exemption given consulting experts. Some responsive documents were prepared after the accident in question, in anticipation of litigation and to defend HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BFS’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE - 11 EXHIBIT "A" Defendant from the claims that are now the subject ofthis litigation. Defendant fiirther objects to this request to the extent it seeks information/ documentation which is protected from disclosure by virtue of the attomey/client privilege. Defendant objects to this request because it is overly broad and it seeks information/documentation Which is outside the scope of discovery as allowedby the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, none regarding the incident prior to HMCI having good cause to anticipate litigation. 45. Copies of all insurance policies, whether basic, umbrella or excess, which may be applicable to pay any judgment in this case or provide any defense in this case. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 46. Copies of Defendant’s OSHA 300/300A Logs for the following years. a. 2019; b. 2020; and c. 2021. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents. 47. Copies of Defendant’s OSHA 200 Logs for the following years: a. 2019; b. 2020; and c. 2021. RESPONSE: After a diligent search HMCI has not located any responsive documents as these forms were no longer required at the time inquired about. HMCI’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BFS’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE - 12 EXHIBIT "A" 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. Yolanda Corrales on behalf of Laura Tamez Bar No. 793869 ycorrales@herreralaw.com Envelope ID: 76799974 Filing Code Description: Motion - Compel Filing Description: PLAINTIFF Status as of 6/22/2023 3:57 PM CST Associated Case Party: BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Ian McLin imclin@langleybanack.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Maureen Purcell mpurcell@langleybanack.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Shawn Selvidge sselvidge@langleybanack.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Yolanda Corrales ycorrales@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Laura Tamez Itamez@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Jorge Herrera jherrera@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Elisha Turney eturney@wslawpc.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Lorena Fernandez lfernandez@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Laura Torrez latorrez@herreralaw.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT Associated Case Party: HMCI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Bryan TPope bpope@wslawpc.com 6/20/2023 5:35:54 PM SENT