Preview
FILED
7/27/2023 4:19 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Brandon Keys DEPUTY
CAUSE NUMBER: DC-23-000913
GUSTAVO ROMERO, A/K/A GUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ROMERO, KAIPEN, INC., GUMAR, LLC,
AND DITTA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
PLAINTIFF,
44" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V.
LARADA SCIENCES, INC., LEWIS
BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP,
AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
JOHN WARREN, DALLAS COUNTY
CLERK.
DEFENDANTS.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS
AND OVERRULE OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs make and file this Motion t Compel Discovery d Answers and to Overrule
objections and would respectfully show as follows:
1 Relief Requested. Defendant Larada should be ordered to answer Interrogatory
No. 1, and Interrogatory No. 2 completely, to verify the answers to all the Interrogatories, and to
produce all documents relating to the preparation of the abstracts of judgment filed against Sant
Salvador Development Co., LLC, Taqueria El Ranchito Inc., Quse, Co., MerchArt USA LLC, and
Training Games, LLC. Larada’s objections to discovery should be overruled. Plaintiffs request that
this Court award them their attorneys fees.
2. Background Facts. On June 8, 2023, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Integrated
Discovery Requests on Defendant, LARADA sciences, Inc. A copy of those discovery requests is
attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1. On July 8, 2023, Plaintiffs received LARADA’s answers to
those discovery requests . A copy of LARADA’s answers is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 2 .
Motion to Compel Discovery Page |
.. On July 9, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed the answers and found several deficiencies, he sent
an e-mail to Larada’s counsel asking him to correct the discovery responses and produce relevant
documents. A copy of that email is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 3
3 Basis for Motion.
A Larada’s Answers to Interrogatories.
Interrogatory No. 1 asked for the factual basis for denying each Request for Admission that was
denied. LARADA objected to Interrogatory No. 1 on the basis that it was not a valid interrogatory
because rule 198 related to Request for Admission does not require an explanation for the answer.
In making that objection, LARADA fails to recognize the scope of interrogatories authorized
by Rule 197.1, which states: “A party may serve on another party--no later than 30 days before the
end of the discovery period--written interrogatories to inquire about any matter within the scope of
discovery except matters covered by Rule 195.1 An interrogatory may inquire whether a party makes
a specific legal or factual contention and may ask the responding party to state the legal theories and
to describe in general the factual bases for the party's claims or defenses, but interrogatories may not
be used to require the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party
intends to offer at trial.” Interrogatory No. 1 is a valid and permissible interrogatory. While Rule
198 does not allow for an explanation within the response to the Request for Admission, Rule 197
does not preclude an interrogatory requesting the reason a request for admission is admitted or
denied. Plaintiffs are unaware of any cases that would support this objection.
The answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is incomplete. There is no information about the facts of
relating to the filing of each of the individual abstracts. Stating that the abstracts were erroneously
filed does not give any information about the facts that led to the preparation of each of the abstracts.
Motion to Compel Discovery Page 2
The answer does not indicate any facts relating to why the abstract shown in Exhibit 3 was filed.
The answers to the Interrogatories are not verified. Plaintiffs have no way of knowing who
answered those interrogatories on behalf of Larada.
B. Larada’s Responses to the Request for Production.
Request for Production 1 asked Larada to produce all documents you used to prepare the Abstracts.
LARADA produced 46 pages of documents that would be responsive to that Request for Production
without an objection to that request for production. None of the documents produced relate to the
preparation of the Abstracts showing the following entities: Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC,
Taqueria El Ranchito Inc., Quse, Co., MerchArt USA LLC, Training Games, LLC. There was also
no documents relating to the preparation of Exhibit 3. As a result, Larada has only partially answered
this Request for Production.
4 Attorneys Fees. Plaintiffs ask this Court to award Plaintiffs their reasonable and
necessary attorneys fees for having to compel Larada to answer their discovery.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray Larada’s objections be overruled and Larada should be ordered
to answer Interrogatory No. 1, and Interrogatory No. 2 completely, to verify the answers to all the
Interrogatories, and to produce all documents relating to the preparation of the abstracts of
judgment filed against Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC, Taqueria El Ranchito Inc., Quse, Co.,
MerchArt USA LLC, and Training Games, LLC. Plaintiffs request that this Court award them their
attorneys fees.
Motion to Compel Discovery Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
ALLEN LANDERMAN, P.C.
By: /s/ Allen Landerman
Allen Landerman
State Bar No.: 11863400
267 Simsbury Road
West Hartford, CT 06117
469-287-7211
888-868-3979 Facsimile
Allen@landermanlaw.com
Certificate of Conference
Thereby certify that I have attempted to confer with Defendants’ attorney by email and phone.
Mr. Digilov has responded to my email or phone call. A hearing is necessary to determine the merits
of this Motion.
/s/Allen Landerman
Allen Landerman
Certificate of Service
Thereby certify that a copy of the above pleading has been sent to:
Felix Digilov, Attorney James Edmonds
Felix.Digilov@lewisbrisbois.com Assistant District Attorney
T: 346.241.4962 F: 713.759.6830 Records Building
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300
Houston, Texas 77046 Dallas, Texas 75202
on July 27, 2023,
/s/Allen Landerman
Allen Landerman
Motion to Compel Discovery Page 4
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way STAVO ROMERO,
CAUSE NUMBER: DC-23-000913
A/K/A GUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ROMERO, KAIPEN, INC., GUMAR, LLC,
AND DITTA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
PLAINTIFF,
44" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv.
LARADA SCIENCES, INC., LEWIS
BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP,
AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
JOHN WARREN, DALLAS COUNTY
CLERK.
DEFENDANTS.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTEGRATED DISCOVERY REQUESTS
TO: Larada Sciences, Inc., through its attorney of Record, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP,
via e-filing system:
Ditta Solutions, LLC, “Ditta,” serves its First Set of Integrated Discovery Requests Larada
Sciences, Inc., “Larada,” combing a Request for Production, Requests for Admissions,
Interrogatories and Request for Disclosure as follows:
Instructions
A. Requests for Admissions
The requests are to be answered separately and fully, in writing and served on each Defendant as
required under the rules. Defendant requests that L. Scott Horne, specifically admit or deny each
request or explain in detail why it cannot admit or deny the request in accordance with Rule 198.2(b).
You are advised that a failure to specifically answer any request or an evasive answer to any request
may be taken as an admission of the truth of such requests pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Exhibit 1 Page |
atte ). Additionally, ifthe Court finds that a party fails to admit a request for admission and proof
at trial demonstrates that the request for admission should have been admitted, Defendants may be
entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 215.4(b).
B. Interrogatories
Answer the written interrogatories separately and fully, in writing and under oath, in accordance with
Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, having the answers signed by the person making
them and serving a true copy of the answer on the undersigned attorney within thirty (30) days after
service of these interrogatories.
Your failure to make timely answers or objections may subject you to sanctions as provided in Rule
215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Furthermore, demand is made for the supplementation of your answers to these interrogatories as
required by Rule 193.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
In answering any interrogatory, please provide the following Information: (a) IDENTIFY each
document that forms a basis for, or supports, the response given; (b) State whether the information
furnished is within the personal knowledge of the PERSON answering and, if not, the IDENTITY
of each PERSON to whom the information is a matter of personal knowledge; (c) If any
DOCUMENT relating to anything asked about in these interrogatories has been destroyed,
IDENTIFY all facts concerning the DOCUMENT and its destruction;
C. Request for Production
Within thirty (30) days, Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, deliver to the
undersigned attorney, the items, documents, and things specified herein at the place set out below
for inspection and copying. All information responsive to this request that is not privileged and that
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 2
art} Hur possession, custody, or control is to be produced.
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 that of the person who
has physical possession of the item.
Ifany of tits information is solely in electronic or magnetic form, you must produce tits information
by providing each Defendant with tits information on CD-ROM disk/s formatted for IBM-
compatible computers with a notation identifying the computer program (including version
identification) necessary to access the information.
If you or any of your attorneys, agents, or representatives at any time had possession or control of
a document requested and that document has been lost, destroyed, or purged or is not presently in
your possession, custody, or control, identify the document and describe the circumstances
surrounding the loss, destruction, purge, or separation from your possession, custody, or control,
indicating the dates that those circumstances occurred.
All items are to be produced within 30 days following service of tits request to Allen Landerman,
267 Simsbury Road, West Hartford, CT 06117, through the efiling system or via first class mail.
When producing documents and tangible things responsive to a request, you must either produce
them as they are kept in the usual course of business or organize and label them to correspond with
the categories in the request.
D. Request for Disclosures
Within 30 days, pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, deliver to the
undersigned attorney the answers propounded under Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.
Ifyou learn that your response to a discovery request was incomplete or incorrect when made or that,
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 3
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way oGh it was complete and correct when made, it is no longer complete and correct, you must
amend or supplement the response —
1. To the extent that the request seeks the identification of persons with knowledge of
relevant facts, trial witnesses, or expert witnesses, and
2. To the extent that the request seeks other information, unless the additional or corrective
information has been made known to the other parties in writing, on the record at a deposition, or
through other discovery responses.
You must make amended or supplemental responses reasonably promptly after you discover
the necessity for such a response.
With respect to each item or category of items, you must state objections and assert privileges as
required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and state, as appropriate, that —
production, inspection, or other requested action would be permitted as requested;
the requested items are being served on L. Scott Horne, with the response;
production, inspection, or other requested action will take place at a specified time and place, if you
are objecting to the time and place of production; or
no items have been identified - after a diligent search - that are responsive to the request.
3 If you allege that any request is in any manner ambiguous, you are instructed to describe in
detail the reasons for your allegations that the request is ambiguous, including but not limited to each
interpretation that you allege the specific request for discovery is subject to. Notwithstanding, you
are instructed to respond, to the best of your ability, to the request for production and produce the
documents requested.
4 Tf you object to any request, you are instructed to identify, with specificity, the specific
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 4
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Uy dural rule(s) or substantive laws(s) on which you base your objection.
Your written response to any document production request should state the following: (a)
Whether no documents exist; (b) If you withhold any document because of a claim of privilege,
identify each such document and the specific ground for withholding it; (c) If your response is that
any requested documents are not in your possession, custody or control, describe in detail the efforts
you made to locate the document and identify who has control and the location of the documents;
(d) Identify the source of each document you produce; and (e) If any requested document has been
destroyed, identify all facts concerning the document and its destruction.
To the extent that you interpose any privilege and decline to respond to any part of any herein
interrogatories, admission requests or production requests; in the answer to each such request
identify
the privilege and state all foundational facts you contend justify invocation of said privilege,
including sufficient facts to uniquely identify any information withheld on the grounds of the
asserted privilege.
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 5
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Wy ‘Definitions
The following definitions shall have the following meanings throughout these discovery
requests unless the context requires otherwise:
“You,” “Your,” “Larada,” or “Larada Sciences, Inc.,” means Defendant, Larada Sciences, Inc., its
officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, including anyone at acting at his direction or
expense.
“Ditta” means Plaintiff, Ditta Solutions, LLC.
“Utah Judgment” means the judgment depicted in Exhibit 1 to these Requests.
“Domestication Litigation” means Cause, DC-23-05995, pending in the 14" Judicial District Court,
Dallas County, Texas.
“Lawsuit” means this Cause, No. DC-23-00913 pending in 44" Judicial District Court, Dallas
County, Texas, including all claims and counterclaims brought by any party.
“Larada Sciences, Inc.’s Claims” or “Your Claims” means the factual allegations, defenses and
claims asserted by Larada Sciences, Inc. this Lawsuit.
“Ditta’s Claims” means the factual allegations and claims asserted by Ditta against Larada Sciences,
Inc., and the other Defendants in this Lawsuit and includes plaintiff’s Third Amended Petition and
the Exhibits attached to that Petition.
“Abstracts” refer to the Abstracts of Judgment attached to these Requests as Exhibits 2 and 3.
“Romero” means Gustavo Romero or Gus Romero.
“Gumar” means Gumar, LLC.
“Kaipen” means Kaipen, Inc.
“Lewis” means Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.
“Requests” means these Integrated Discovery Requests.
"Item" or "document(s)" shall mean all writings of every kind, source, and authorship, both originals
and all non-candidate copies thereof, in your possession, custody, or control, or known by you to
exist, irrespective of whether the writing is one intended for or transmitted internally by you, or
intended for or transmitted to any other person or entity, including without limitation any
government agency, department, administrative, private entity or person. The term shall include
handwritten, typewritten, printed, photocopied, photographic, or recorded matter. It shall include
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 6
y nications in works, symbols, pictures, sound recordings, films, tapes, and information stored
eat
y/ cessible through, computer or other information storage or retrieval systems, together with the
codes and/or programming instructions and other materials necessary to understand and use such
systems. For purposes on illustration and not limitation, the term shall include affidavits, agendas,
agreements, analyses, announcements, bills, statements, and other records or obligations and
expenditures, books, brochures, bulletins, calendars, canceled checks, vouchers, receipts, and other
records of payments, charts, drawings, check registers, checkbooks, circulars, collateral files and
contents, contracts, corporate by-laws, corporate charters, correspondence, credit files and contents,
deeds
of trust, deposit slips, diaries, drafts, files, guaranty agreements, instructions, invoices, ledgers,
journals, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and other sources of financial data, letters, logs,
notes, or memoranda of telephonic or face-to-face conversations, manuals, memoranda of all kinds,
to and from any person, agencies, entities, minutes, minute books, notes, notices, parts lists, papers,
press releases, printed matter (including published books, articles, speeches, and newspaper
clippings), purchase orders, records, record of administrative, technical, and financial actions taken
or recommended, reports, safety deposit boxes and contents and records of entry, schedules , security
agreements, specifications, statement of bank accounts, statements, interviews, stock transfer ledger,
technical and engineering reports, evaluations, advice, recommendations, commentaries,
conclusions, studies, test plans, manuals, procedures, data, reports, results, and conclusions,
summaries, notes, and other records and recordings of any conferences, meetings, visits, statements,
interviews or telephone conversations, telegrams, teletypes and other communications sent or
received, transcripts of testimony, UCC instruments, work-papers, and all other writings, the content
of which relate to, discuss, consider, or otherwise refer to the subject matter of the particular
discovery requested, means all written, typed or printed matter and all magnetic or other records or
documentation of any kind or description including, without limitation, letters, correspondence,
telegrams, memoranda, notes, records, minutes, contracts, agreements or notations of telephone or
personal conversations, conferences, interoffice communications, e-mail, microfilm, bulletins,
circulars, pamphlets, photographs, facsimiles, invoices, tape recordings, computer printouts and
worksheets (including drafts and copies not identical to the originals), all photographs and graphic
matter, however produced or reproduced, and all compilations of data from which information can
be obtained, and any and all writings or records of any type or nature, 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.
"Possession, custody or control" includes, in accordance with Rule 192.7(b), constructive possession
such that the person need not have actual possession. As long as the person has the superior right to
compel the production from a third party (including an agency, authority or representative), the
person has possession, custody or control.
"Relates to" means in whole or in part constitutes, contains, embodies, relates, analyzes, identifies,
states, refers to, deals with, or in any way pertains to.
The term "person" shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations and any other
type of entity or institution whether formed for business purposes or any other purposes.
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 7
(ZZ 76407847
06/08/23
08:45:47
ti "TRCP" shall refer to the specific numbered rule set forth the Texas Rules of Civil
By dure.
The relevant time period encompassed by these discovery requests is September 1, 2022, through
the day of trial.
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page &
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way INTEGRATED DISCOVERY REQUESTS
a) ADMIT OR DENY pursuant to TRCP 198 the facts contained on Exhibit A attached hereto.
(b) If your response to any of the above requests for admissions is anything other than an unqualified
admission, as an answer to tits Interrogatory pursuant to TRCP 197, IDENTIFY separately as to each
such request: (i) Any facts you contend justify anything other than an unqualified admission; (ii) Any
PERSON with knowledge of such purported facts; and (iii) Any DOCUMENTS that support your
answer.
(c) If you have identified any DOCUMENTS pursuant to the above interrogatory, produce pursuant
to TRCP 196, the original of each such DOCUMENT in YOUR constructive or actual possession,
custody or control, for inspection and/or copying at a mutually satisfactory place and time.
(d) If you have any DOCUMENTS to produce responsive to the request for production hereof, admit
pursuant to TRCP 198, that each is genuine and authentic.
(e) As an answer to tits Interrogatory pursuant to TRCP 197, IDENTIFY any document you contend
is relevant to the request for admission made in part (a) hereof and your answer to part (b)(iii) hereof,
but not produced for any reason.
(f) Produce the documents set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto pursuant to TRCP 196.
(g) Answer the Interrogatories set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto pursuant to TRCP 197.
(h) Make the disclosures required by Exhibit D, TRCP 194.2.
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 9
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way Admit or deny:
EXHIBIT A - FACTS TO BE ADMITTED
Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Utah Judgment.
Answer:
Admit or deny:
You or someone working on your behalf filed the Abstracts shown in Exhibits 2 and 3.
Answer:
3 Admit or deny:
You did not file an authenticated copy the Utah Judgment with either a District Clerk or a
County Clerk of any county in Texas prior to filing the Abstracts.
Answer:
Admit or deny:
You filed the Abstracts prior to filing the Domestication Lawsuit.
Answer:
Admit or deny:
Romero was not a party to the Utah Judgment.
Answer:
Admit or deny:
Gumar was not a party to the Utah Judgment.
Answer:
Admit or deny:
Kaipen was not a party to the Utah Judgment
Answer:
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 10
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way Admit or deny:
You, or someone at your direction or behalf, prepared Exhibits 2 and 3.
Answer:
Admit or deny:
You knew Ditta’s employer identification number (EIN).
Answer:
10 Admit or deny:
You did not include Ditta’s employer identification number on any of the abstracts.
Answer:
11 Admit or deny:
There was no reason to include Romero’s date of birth on the Abstracts.
Answer:
12 Admit or deny:
There was no reason to include a portion of Romero’s social security number on the
Abstracts.
Answer:
13. Admit or deny:
There was no reason to file Exhibit 3.
Answer:
14 Admit or deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-1.
Answer:
15. Admit or deny:
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 11
(ZZ
76407847
6/08/23,
08:45:47
Wy There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-3.
Answer:
16. Admit or deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-4.
Answer:
17 Admit or deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-7.
Answer:
18 Admit or Deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-8.
Answer:
19 Admit or Deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-9.
Answer:
20 Admit or Deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-10.
Answer:
21 Admit or Deny:
There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 3.
22 Admit or Deny:
The inclusion of Romero’s name, date of birth, and part of his social security number made
it appear that Romero, individually, of money to Larada.
Answer:
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 12
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way EXHIBIT B - DOCUMENTS REQUESTED TO BE PRODUCED
1 Produce a copy of all documents you used to prepare the Abstracts.
Response:
2. Produce a copy of all documents containing any non-privileged communication between You
and any other person or entity, regarding or related to the Utah Judgment or the Abstracts.
Response:
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 13
(7
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way nterrogatory No. 1
EXHIBIT C - INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED
For each Request for Admission contained in these discovery requests that you have denied, state
the following:
a. The number of the request for admission that was denied; and
b. The specific reason for the denial of that request for admission.
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 2
What was the factual basis for filing each of the abstracts shown in Exhibits 2 and 3?
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 3
If you contend that the Abstracts were filed in good faith, state the factual basis that supports your
contention that each of the abstracts shown in Exhibits 2 and 3 were filed in good faith.
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 4
State your reason or the factual basis for not including Ditta’s employer identification number (EIN)
on any of the Abstracts.
Answer:
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 14
(ZZ
76407847
06;08/23
08:45:47
iil 2x 1B IT D - REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Make the disclosures required by Rule 194.2, TRCP.
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 15
(ZZ
76407847
0608/23
08:45:47
Way Respectfully submitted,
ALLEN LANDERMAN, P.C.
By: /s/ Allen Landerman
Allen Landerman
State Bar No.: 11863400
267 Simsbury Road
West Hartford, CT 06117
469-287-7211
888-868-3979 Facsimile
Allen@landermanlaw.com
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 16
(ZZ
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
Way Certificate of Service
Thereby certify that a copy of the above pleading has been sent to:
Felix Digilov, Attorney James Edmonds
Felix.Digilov@lewisbrisbois.com Assistant District Attorney
T: 346.241.4962 F: 713.759.6830 Records Building
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300
Houston, Texas 77046 Dallas, Texas 75202
on June 7, 2023.
/s/Allen Landerman
Allen Landerman
Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 17
76407847 The Order of the Court is stated below:
06/08/23, Dated: September 13, 2022 Is} RAI
08:45:47
02:34:11 PM Dist
DOUGLAS C. SMITH, #10805
KYLE C. THOMPSON, #11242
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6550 South Millrock Drive, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121-2319
Telephone: 801.562.5555
Facsimile: 801.562.5510
Douglas.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com
Kyle.Thompson@lewisbrisbois.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
Larada Sciences, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff, JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT
DITTA SOLUTIONS, LLC
Vv.
Civil No. 210905337
Ditta Solutions, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, Judge Randall Skanchy
Defendant. Tier 2
Based upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff, Larada Sciences, Inc.
(‘Plaintiff"), and this Court having granted said Motion for Summary Judgment,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment shall be
and is awarded to Plaintiff and that Defendant, Ditta Solutions, LLC is liable for said
judgment as follows:
Wt
Principal (including treatment _fees and | $62,361.50
September 13, 2022 02:34 PM
Exhibit 1 1 of 3
76407847
06/08/23
08:45:47
contractual late fees as of August 22,
2022, as sought by Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment)
Prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 $6,439.10
percent per annum (which represents a
discount from the contractual rate of 18
percent per annum) as of August 22, 2022,
as sought by Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment
Attorney fees as sought by Plaintiff's | $15,072.80
Motion for Summary Judgment
Taxable costs $625.00
TOTAL $84,498.40
The judgment shall bear post judgment interest at the contractual rate of 10% per
annum based upon outstanding principal until paid in full, from the date judgment is
entered, until paid, as allowed pursuant to Utah Code § 15-1-4(2)(a) (2018).
Additionally, Plaintiff may augment the judgment for any attorneys’ fees or collection
costs incurred in the collection of the judgment pursuant to Section 9(b) of the
applicable license agreements.
*Executed and entered by the court as indicated by the cate and seal at the top
of Page 1**
[END OF ORDER]
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATED: September 9, 2022 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
By: /s/ Kyle C. Thompson
20f3
September 13, 2022 02:34 PM
76407847
06/08/23,
08:45:47
DOUGLAS C. SMITH
KYLE C. THOMPSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED: September 9, 2022 SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
/s/ Robert B. Cummings (signed with
By: permission)
ROBERT B. CUMMINGS
Attorneys for Defendant
September 13, 2022 02:34 PM 3 of 3
76407847 ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
6/08/23,
08:45:47
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
I, Felix Digilov, attomey of record for Larada Sciences, Inc., Judgment Plaintiff (herein,
Judgment Creditor), certify as follows
i In Cause No. 210905337, Larada Sciences, Inc. v. Ditta Solutions, LLC, In the Third
District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Judgment Creditor recovered a judgment
against Judgment Debtor, Ditm Solutions, LLC.
2. Judgment Creditor’s address is as follows
Larada Sciences, Inc. c/o Felix Digilov, Douglas Smith, Kyle Thompson
Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77046
Judgment Debtor’s addresses is as follows
Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC
Gustavo Romero
8222 Douglas Ave Ste 250
Dallas, Texas 75225-5933
Judgment Debtor’s date of birth is: 06/17/1959
The first 5 digits of Judgment Debtor’s social security number are: hh
Final Judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor on September [3, 2022 and the
amount now due, after all credits and offsets, and exclusive of post-judgment interest, is $84,498.40.
4 Principal $62,361.50
5 The pre-judgment rate of interest is 10% beginning August 22, 2022 to date of
judgment and totals $6,439.10.
6. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,072.80.
7 Costs of Court in the amount of $625.00.
8. The post judgment rate of interest specified in the judgment is 5% beginning on txsay
after entry of the judgment, September 13, 2022 and continuing until the judgment is paid.
Felix Digilov
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on October 14, 2022 personally appeared, FELIX
DIGILOV, who swore on oath that the facts stated in this, of judgment are within his personal
knowledge and are true and correct.
Notary Public, State of Texas
After recording, return to: Felix Digilov, Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard
& Smith, 24 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1400, Houston,
TX 77046.
Exhibit 2-1
AUDREY,
4865 873157691
eS Mynay (OW 126807821
29. 2024
76407847 ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
06/08/23,
08:45:47
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS :
1, Felix Digilov, attomey of record for Larada Sciences, Inc., Judgment Plaintiff (herein.
Judgment Creditor), certify as follows:
1 In Cause No. 210905337, Larada Sciences, Inc. v. Ditta Solutions, LLC, In the Third
District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Judgment Creditor recovered a judgment
against Judgment Debtor, Ditta Solutions, LLC.
2 Judgment Creditor’s address is as follows:
Larada Sciences, Inc. c/o Felix Digilov, Douglas Smith, Kyle Thompson
Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77046
Judgment Debtor’s addresses is as follows:
Lice Clinics of America DFW
Gustavo Romero
1850 Lakepointe Dr. Ste. 350
Lewisville, TX 75057-6443
Judgment Debtor’s date of birth is: 06/17/1959
The first 5 digits of Judgment Debtor’s social security number are: Hi
Final Judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor on September 13, 2022 and the
amount now due, after all credits and offsets, and exclusive of post-judgment interest, is $84,498.40.
4 Principal $62,361.50
5 The pre-judgment rate of interest is 10% beginning August 22, 2022 to date of
judgment and totals $6,439.10.
6 Attomeys’ fees in the amount of $15,072.80.
4
Costs of Court in the amount of $625.00.
8. The post judgment rate of interest specified in the judgment is 5% beginning on fudw
after entry of the judgment, September 13, 2022 and continuing until the judgment is paid.
9. There is now still due on this judgment the amounts set out above
a
Felix Digilov
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on October 14, 2022 personally appeared, FELIX
a?
DIGILOV, who swore on oath that the facts stated in this abs) f judgment are within his personal
knowledge and are true and correct. \
Sf
Notary Public, State of Texas
After recording, return to: Felix Digilov, Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Sinith, 24 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1400, Houston,
TX 77046.
Exhibit 2-2 swe eee,
AUDREY BRIOGi
My Notary iD # 126607821
4891-6746-8089.1 Expires
July 29, 2024
76407847 ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
06/08/23,
08:45:47
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
1, Felix Digilov, attomey of record for Larada Sciences, Inc., Judgment Plaintiff (herein,
Judgment Creditor), certify as follows
I In Cause No. 210905337, Larada Sciences, Inc. v. Ditta Solutions, LLC, In the Third
District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Judgment Creditor recovered a judgment
against Judgment Debtor, Ditta Solutions, LLC.
2. Judgment Creditor’s address is as follows:
Larada Sciences, Inc. c/o Felix Digilov, Douglas Smith, Kyle Thompson
Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Sm
Preview
FILED 7/27/2023 4:19 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Brandon Keys DEPUTY CAUSE NUMBER: DC-23-000913 GUSTAVO ROMERO, A/K/A GUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT ROMERO, KAIPEN, INC., GUMAR, LLC, AND DITTA SOLUTIONS, LLC, PLAINTIFF, 44" JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. LARADA SCIENCES, INC., LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOHN WARREN, DALLAS COUNTY CLERK. DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS AND OVERRULE OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY Plaintiffs make and file this Motion t Compel Discovery d Answers and to Overrule objections and would respectfully show as follows: 1 Relief Requested. Defendant Larada should be ordered to answer Interrogatory No. 1, and Interrogatory No. 2 completely, to verify the answers to all the Interrogatories, and to produce all documents relating to the preparation of the abstracts of judgment filed against Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC, Taqueria El Ranchito Inc., Quse, Co., MerchArt USA LLC, and Training Games, LLC. Larada’s objections to discovery should be overruled. Plaintiffs request that this Court award them their attorneys fees. 2. Background Facts. On June 8, 2023, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Integrated Discovery Requests on Defendant, LARADA sciences, Inc. A copy of those discovery requests is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1. On July 8, 2023, Plaintiffs received LARADA’s answers to those discovery requests . A copy of LARADA’s answers is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 2 . Motion to Compel Discovery Page | .. On July 9, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed the answers and found several deficiencies, he sent an e-mail to Larada’s counsel asking him to correct the discovery responses and produce relevant documents. A copy of that email is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 3 3 Basis for Motion. A Larada’s Answers to Interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 1 asked for the factual basis for denying each Request for Admission that was denied. LARADA objected to Interrogatory No. 1 on the basis that it was not a valid interrogatory because rule 198 related to Request for Admission does not require an explanation for the answer. In making that objection, LARADA fails to recognize the scope of interrogatories authorized by Rule 197.1, which states: “A party may serve on another party--no later than 30 days before the end of the discovery period--written interrogatories to inquire about any matter within the scope of discovery except matters covered by Rule 195.1 An interrogatory may inquire whether a party makes a specific legal or factual contention and may ask the responding party to state the legal theories and to describe in general the factual bases for the party's claims or defenses, but interrogatories may not be used to require the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial.” Interrogatory No. 1 is a valid and permissible interrogatory. While Rule 198 does not allow for an explanation within the response to the Request for Admission, Rule 197 does not preclude an interrogatory requesting the reason a request for admission is admitted or denied. Plaintiffs are unaware of any cases that would support this objection. The answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is incomplete. There is no information about the facts of relating to the filing of each of the individual abstracts. Stating that the abstracts were erroneously filed does not give any information about the facts that led to the preparation of each of the abstracts. Motion to Compel Discovery Page 2 The answer does not indicate any facts relating to why the abstract shown in Exhibit 3 was filed. The answers to the Interrogatories are not verified. Plaintiffs have no way of knowing who answered those interrogatories on behalf of Larada. B. Larada’s Responses to the Request for Production. Request for Production 1 asked Larada to produce all documents you used to prepare the Abstracts. LARADA produced 46 pages of documents that would be responsive to that Request for Production without an objection to that request for production. None of the documents produced relate to the preparation of the Abstracts showing the following entities: Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC, Taqueria El Ranchito Inc., Quse, Co., MerchArt USA LLC, Training Games, LLC. There was also no documents relating to the preparation of Exhibit 3. As a result, Larada has only partially answered this Request for Production. 4 Attorneys Fees. Plaintiffs ask this Court to award Plaintiffs their reasonable and necessary attorneys fees for having to compel Larada to answer their discovery. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray Larada’s objections be overruled and Larada should be ordered to answer Interrogatory No. 1, and Interrogatory No. 2 completely, to verify the answers to all the Interrogatories, and to produce all documents relating to the preparation of the abstracts of judgment filed against Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC, Taqueria El Ranchito Inc., Quse, Co., MerchArt USA LLC, and Training Games, LLC. Plaintiffs request that this Court award them their attorneys fees. Motion to Compel Discovery Page 3 Respectfully submitted, ALLEN LANDERMAN, P.C. By: /s/ Allen Landerman Allen Landerman State Bar No.: 11863400 267 Simsbury Road West Hartford, CT 06117 469-287-7211 888-868-3979 Facsimile Allen@landermanlaw.com Certificate of Conference Thereby certify that I have attempted to confer with Defendants’ attorney by email and phone. Mr. Digilov has responded to my email or phone call. A hearing is necessary to determine the merits of this Motion. /s/Allen Landerman Allen Landerman Certificate of Service Thereby certify that a copy of the above pleading has been sent to: Felix Digilov, Attorney James Edmonds Felix.Digilov@lewisbrisbois.com Assistant District Attorney T: 346.241.4962 F: 713.759.6830 Records Building 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300 Houston, Texas 77046 Dallas, Texas 75202 on July 27, 2023, /s/Allen Landerman Allen Landerman Motion to Compel Discovery Page 4 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way STAVO ROMERO, CAUSE NUMBER: DC-23-000913 A/K/A GUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT ROMERO, KAIPEN, INC., GUMAR, LLC, AND DITTA SOLUTIONS, LLC, PLAINTIFF, 44" JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. LARADA SCIENCES, INC., LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOHN WARREN, DALLAS COUNTY CLERK. DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTEGRATED DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO: Larada Sciences, Inc., through its attorney of Record, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, via e-filing system: Ditta Solutions, LLC, “Ditta,” serves its First Set of Integrated Discovery Requests Larada Sciences, Inc., “Larada,” combing a Request for Production, Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Disclosure as follows: Instructions A. Requests for Admissions The requests are to be answered separately and fully, in writing and served on each Defendant as required under the rules. Defendant requests that L. Scott Horne, specifically admit or deny each request or explain in detail why it cannot admit or deny the request in accordance with Rule 198.2(b). You are advised that a failure to specifically answer any request or an evasive answer to any request may be taken as an admission of the truth of such requests pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Exhibit 1 Page | atte ). Additionally, ifthe Court finds that a party fails to admit a request for admission and proof at trial demonstrates that the request for admission should have been admitted, Defendants may be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 215.4(b). B. Interrogatories Answer the written interrogatories separately and fully, in writing and under oath, in accordance with Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, having the answers signed by the person making them and serving a true copy of the answer on the undersigned attorney within thirty (30) days after service of these interrogatories. Your failure to make timely answers or objections may subject you to sanctions as provided in Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, demand is made for the supplementation of your answers to these interrogatories as required by Rule 193.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In answering any interrogatory, please provide the following Information: (a) IDENTIFY each document that forms a basis for, or supports, the response given; (b) State whether the information furnished is within the personal knowledge of the PERSON answering and, if not, the IDENTITY of each PERSON to whom the information is a matter of personal knowledge; (c) If any DOCUMENT relating to anything asked about in these interrogatories has been destroyed, IDENTIFY all facts concerning the DOCUMENT and its destruction; C. Request for Production Within thirty (30) days, Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, deliver to the undersigned attorney, the items, documents, and things specified herein at the place set out below for inspection and copying. All information responsive to this request that is not privileged and that Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 2 art} Hur possession, custody, or control is to be produced. 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 that of the person who has physical possession of the item. Ifany of tits information is solely in electronic or magnetic form, you must produce tits information by providing each Defendant with tits information on CD-ROM disk/s formatted for IBM- compatible computers with a notation identifying the computer program (including version identification) necessary to access the information. If you or any of your attorneys, agents, or representatives at any time had possession or control of a document requested and that document has been lost, destroyed, or purged or is not presently in your possession, custody, or control, identify the document and describe the circumstances surrounding the loss, destruction, purge, or separation from your possession, custody, or control, indicating the dates that those circumstances occurred. All items are to be produced within 30 days following service of tits request to Allen Landerman, 267 Simsbury Road, West Hartford, CT 06117, through the efiling system or via first class mail. When producing documents and tangible things responsive to a request, you must either produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request. D. Request for Disclosures Within 30 days, pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, deliver to the undersigned attorney the answers propounded under Tex. R. Civ. P. 194. Ifyou learn that your response to a discovery request was incomplete or incorrect when made or that, Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 3 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way oGh it was complete and correct when made, it is no longer complete and correct, you must amend or supplement the response — 1. To the extent that the request seeks the identification of persons with knowledge of relevant facts, trial witnesses, or expert witnesses, and 2. To the extent that the request seeks other information, unless the additional or corrective information has been made known to the other parties in writing, on the record at a deposition, or through other discovery responses. You must make amended or supplemental responses reasonably promptly after you discover the necessity for such a response. With respect to each item or category of items, you must state objections and assert privileges as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and state, as appropriate, that — production, inspection, or other requested action would be permitted as requested; the requested items are being served on L. Scott Horne, with the response; production, inspection, or other requested action will take place at a specified time and place, if you are objecting to the time and place of production; or no items have been identified - after a diligent search - that are responsive to the request. 3 If you allege that any request is in any manner ambiguous, you are instructed to describe in detail the reasons for your allegations that the request is ambiguous, including but not limited to each interpretation that you allege the specific request for discovery is subject to. Notwithstanding, you are instructed to respond, to the best of your ability, to the request for production and produce the documents requested. 4 Tf you object to any request, you are instructed to identify, with specificity, the specific Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 4 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Uy dural rule(s) or substantive laws(s) on which you base your objection. Your written response to any document production request should state the following: (a) Whether no documents exist; (b) If you withhold any document because of a claim of privilege, identify each such document and the specific ground for withholding it; (c) If your response is that any requested documents are not in your possession, custody or control, describe in detail the efforts you made to locate the document and identify who has control and the location of the documents; (d) Identify the source of each document you produce; and (e) If any requested document has been destroyed, identify all facts concerning the document and its destruction. To the extent that you interpose any privilege and decline to respond to any part of any herein interrogatories, admission requests or production requests; in the answer to each such request identify the privilege and state all foundational facts you contend justify invocation of said privilege, including sufficient facts to uniquely identify any information withheld on the grounds of the asserted privilege. Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 5 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Wy ‘Definitions The following definitions shall have the following meanings throughout these discovery requests unless the context requires otherwise: “You,” “Your,” “Larada,” or “Larada Sciences, Inc.,” means Defendant, Larada Sciences, Inc., its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, including anyone at acting at his direction or expense. “Ditta” means Plaintiff, Ditta Solutions, LLC. “Utah Judgment” means the judgment depicted in Exhibit 1 to these Requests. “Domestication Litigation” means Cause, DC-23-05995, pending in the 14" Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. “Lawsuit” means this Cause, No. DC-23-00913 pending in 44" Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, including all claims and counterclaims brought by any party. “Larada Sciences, Inc.’s Claims” or “Your Claims” means the factual allegations, defenses and claims asserted by Larada Sciences, Inc. this Lawsuit. “Ditta’s Claims” means the factual allegations and claims asserted by Ditta against Larada Sciences, Inc., and the other Defendants in this Lawsuit and includes plaintiff’s Third Amended Petition and the Exhibits attached to that Petition. “Abstracts” refer to the Abstracts of Judgment attached to these Requests as Exhibits 2 and 3. “Romero” means Gustavo Romero or Gus Romero. “Gumar” means Gumar, LLC. “Kaipen” means Kaipen, Inc. “Lewis” means Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP. “Requests” means these Integrated Discovery Requests. "Item" or "document(s)" shall mean all writings of every kind, source, and authorship, both originals and all non-candidate copies thereof, in your possession, custody, or control, or known by you to exist, irrespective of whether the writing is one intended for or transmitted internally by you, or intended for or transmitted to any other person or entity, including without limitation any government agency, department, administrative, private entity or person. The term shall include handwritten, typewritten, printed, photocopied, photographic, or recorded matter. It shall include Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 6 y nications in works, symbols, pictures, sound recordings, films, tapes, and information stored eat y/ cessible through, computer or other information storage or retrieval systems, together with the codes and/or programming instructions and other materials necessary to understand and use such systems. For purposes on illustration and not limitation, the term shall include affidavits, agendas, agreements, analyses, announcements, bills, statements, and other records or obligations and expenditures, books, brochures, bulletins, calendars, canceled checks, vouchers, receipts, and other records of payments, charts, drawings, check registers, checkbooks, circulars, collateral files and contents, contracts, corporate by-laws, corporate charters, correspondence, credit files and contents, deeds of trust, deposit slips, diaries, drafts, files, guaranty agreements, instructions, invoices, ledgers, journals, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and other sources of financial data, letters, logs, notes, or memoranda of telephonic or face-to-face conversations, manuals, memoranda of all kinds, to and from any person, agencies, entities, minutes, minute books, notes, notices, parts lists, papers, press releases, printed matter (including published books, articles, speeches, and newspaper clippings), purchase orders, records, record of administrative, technical, and financial actions taken or recommended, reports, safety deposit boxes and contents and records of entry, schedules , security agreements, specifications, statement of bank accounts, statements, interviews, stock transfer ledger, technical and engineering reports, evaluations, advice, recommendations, commentaries, conclusions, studies, test plans, manuals, procedures, data, reports, results, and conclusions, summaries, notes, and other records and recordings of any conferences, meetings, visits, statements, interviews or telephone conversations, telegrams, teletypes and other communications sent or received, transcripts of testimony, UCC instruments, work-papers, and all other writings, the content of which relate to, discuss, consider, or otherwise refer to the subject matter of the particular discovery requested, means all written, typed or printed matter and all magnetic or other records or documentation of any kind or description including, without limitation, letters, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, notes, records, minutes, contracts, agreements or notations of telephone or personal conversations, conferences, interoffice communications, e-mail, microfilm, bulletins, circulars, pamphlets, photographs, facsimiles, invoices, tape recordings, computer printouts and worksheets (including drafts and copies not identical to the originals), all photographs and graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, and all compilations of data from which information can be obtained, and any and all writings or records of any type or nature, 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. "Possession, custody or control" includes, in accordance with Rule 192.7(b), constructive possession such that the person need not have actual possession. As long as the person has the superior right to compel the production from a third party (including an agency, authority or representative), the person has possession, custody or control. "Relates to" means in whole or in part constitutes, contains, embodies, relates, analyzes, identifies, states, refers to, deals with, or in any way pertains to. The term "person" shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations and any other type of entity or institution whether formed for business purposes or any other purposes. Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 7 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23 08:45:47 ti "TRCP" shall refer to the specific numbered rule set forth the Texas Rules of Civil By dure. The relevant time period encompassed by these discovery requests is September 1, 2022, through the day of trial. Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page & (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way INTEGRATED DISCOVERY REQUESTS a) ADMIT OR DENY pursuant to TRCP 198 the facts contained on Exhibit A attached hereto. (b) If your response to any of the above requests for admissions is anything other than an unqualified admission, as an answer to tits Interrogatory pursuant to TRCP 197, IDENTIFY separately as to each such request: (i) Any facts you contend justify anything other than an unqualified admission; (ii) Any PERSON with knowledge of such purported facts; and (iii) Any DOCUMENTS that support your answer. (c) If you have identified any DOCUMENTS pursuant to the above interrogatory, produce pursuant to TRCP 196, the original of each such DOCUMENT in YOUR constructive or actual possession, custody or control, for inspection and/or copying at a mutually satisfactory place and time. (d) If you have any DOCUMENTS to produce responsive to the request for production hereof, admit pursuant to TRCP 198, that each is genuine and authentic. (e) As an answer to tits Interrogatory pursuant to TRCP 197, IDENTIFY any document you contend is relevant to the request for admission made in part (a) hereof and your answer to part (b)(iii) hereof, but not produced for any reason. (f) Produce the documents set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto pursuant to TRCP 196. (g) Answer the Interrogatories set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto pursuant to TRCP 197. (h) Make the disclosures required by Exhibit D, TRCP 194.2. Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 9 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way Admit or deny: EXHIBIT A - FACTS TO BE ADMITTED Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Utah Judgment. Answer: Admit or deny: You or someone working on your behalf filed the Abstracts shown in Exhibits 2 and 3. Answer: 3 Admit or deny: You did not file an authenticated copy the Utah Judgment with either a District Clerk or a County Clerk of any county in Texas prior to filing the Abstracts. Answer: Admit or deny: You filed the Abstracts prior to filing the Domestication Lawsuit. Answer: Admit or deny: Romero was not a party to the Utah Judgment. Answer: Admit or deny: Gumar was not a party to the Utah Judgment. Answer: Admit or deny: Kaipen was not a party to the Utah Judgment Answer: Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 10 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way Admit or deny: You, or someone at your direction or behalf, prepared Exhibits 2 and 3. Answer: Admit or deny: You knew Ditta’s employer identification number (EIN). Answer: 10 Admit or deny: You did not include Ditta’s employer identification number on any of the abstracts. Answer: 11 Admit or deny: There was no reason to include Romero’s date of birth on the Abstracts. Answer: 12 Admit or deny: There was no reason to include a portion of Romero’s social security number on the Abstracts. Answer: 13. Admit or deny: There was no reason to file Exhibit 3. Answer: 14 Admit or deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-1. Answer: 15. Admit or deny: Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 11 (ZZ 76407847 6/08/23, 08:45:47 Wy There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-3. Answer: 16. Admit or deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-4. Answer: 17 Admit or deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-7. Answer: 18 Admit or Deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-8. Answer: 19 Admit or Deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-9. Answer: 20 Admit or Deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 2-10. Answer: 21 Admit or Deny: There was no reason to file the abstract attached as Exhibit 3. 22 Admit or Deny: The inclusion of Romero’s name, date of birth, and part of his social security number made it appear that Romero, individually, of money to Larada. Answer: Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 12 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way EXHIBIT B - DOCUMENTS REQUESTED TO BE PRODUCED 1 Produce a copy of all documents you used to prepare the Abstracts. Response: 2. Produce a copy of all documents containing any non-privileged communication between You and any other person or entity, regarding or related to the Utah Judgment or the Abstracts. Response: Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 13 (7 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way nterrogatory No. 1 EXHIBIT C - INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED For each Request for Admission contained in these discovery requests that you have denied, state the following: a. The number of the request for admission that was denied; and b. The specific reason for the denial of that request for admission. Answer: Interrogatory No. 2 What was the factual basis for filing each of the abstracts shown in Exhibits 2 and 3? Answer: Interrogatory No. 3 If you contend that the Abstracts were filed in good faith, state the factual basis that supports your contention that each of the abstracts shown in Exhibits 2 and 3 were filed in good faith. Answer: Interrogatory No. 4 State your reason or the factual basis for not including Ditta’s employer identification number (EIN) on any of the Abstracts. Answer: Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 14 (ZZ 76407847 06;08/23 08:45:47 iil 2x 1B IT D - REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Make the disclosures required by Rule 194.2, TRCP. Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 15 (ZZ 76407847 0608/23 08:45:47 Way Respectfully submitted, ALLEN LANDERMAN, P.C. By: /s/ Allen Landerman Allen Landerman State Bar No.: 11863400 267 Simsbury Road West Hartford, CT 06117 469-287-7211 888-868-3979 Facsimile Allen@landermanlaw.com Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 16 (ZZ 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 Way Certificate of Service Thereby certify that a copy of the above pleading has been sent to: Felix Digilov, Attorney James Edmonds Felix.Digilov@lewisbrisbois.com Assistant District Attorney T: 346.241.4962 F: 713.759.6830 Records Building 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300 Houston, Texas 77046 Dallas, Texas 75202 on June 7, 2023. /s/Allen Landerman Allen Landerman Ditta’s First set of Integrated Discovery Requests to Larada Page 17 76407847 The Order of the Court is stated below: 06/08/23, Dated: September 13, 2022 Is} RAI 08:45:47 02:34:11 PM Dist DOUGLAS C. SMITH, #10805 KYLE C. THOMPSON, #11242 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6550 South Millrock Drive, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121-2319 Telephone: 801.562.5555 Facsimile: 801.562.5510 Douglas.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com Kyle.Thompson@lewisbrisbois.com Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH Larada Sciences, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT DITTA SOLUTIONS, LLC Vv. Civil No. 210905337 Ditta Solutions, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Judge Randall Skanchy Defendant. Tier 2 Based upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff, Larada Sciences, Inc. (‘Plaintiff"), and this Court having granted said Motion for Summary Judgment, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment shall be and is awarded to Plaintiff and that Defendant, Ditta Solutions, LLC is liable for said judgment as follows: Wt Principal (including treatment _fees and | $62,361.50 September 13, 2022 02:34 PM Exhibit 1 1 of 3 76407847 06/08/23 08:45:47 contractual late fees as of August 22, 2022, as sought by Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) Prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 $6,439.10 percent per annum (which represents a discount from the contractual rate of 18 percent per annum) as of August 22, 2022, as sought by Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Attorney fees as sought by Plaintiff's | $15,072.80 Motion for Summary Judgment Taxable costs $625.00 TOTAL $84,498.40 The judgment shall bear post judgment interest at the contractual rate of 10% per annum based upon outstanding principal until paid in full, from the date judgment is entered, until paid, as allowed pursuant to Utah Code § 15-1-4(2)(a) (2018). Additionally, Plaintiff may augment the judgment for any attorneys’ fees or collection costs incurred in the collection of the judgment pursuant to Section 9(b) of the applicable license agreements. *Executed and entered by the court as indicated by the cate and seal at the top of Page 1** [END OF ORDER] APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATED: September 9, 2022 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP By: /s/ Kyle C. Thompson 20f3 September 13, 2022 02:34 PM 76407847 06/08/23, 08:45:47 DOUGLAS C. SMITH KYLE C. THOMPSON Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: September 9, 2022 SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU /s/ Robert B. Cummings (signed with By: permission) ROBERT B. CUMMINGS Attorneys for Defendant September 13, 2022 02:34 PM 3 of 3 76407847 ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT 6/08/23, 08:45:47 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS § I, Felix Digilov, attomey of record for Larada Sciences, Inc., Judgment Plaintiff (herein, Judgment Creditor), certify as follows i In Cause No. 210905337, Larada Sciences, Inc. v. Ditta Solutions, LLC, In the Third District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Judgment Creditor recovered a judgment against Judgment Debtor, Ditm Solutions, LLC. 2. Judgment Creditor’s address is as follows Larada Sciences, Inc. c/o Felix Digilov, Douglas Smith, Kyle Thompson Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77046 Judgment Debtor’s addresses is as follows Sant Salvador Development Co., LLC Gustavo Romero 8222 Douglas Ave Ste 250 Dallas, Texas 75225-5933 Judgment Debtor’s date of birth is: 06/17/1959 The first 5 digits of Judgment Debtor’s social security number are: hh Final Judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor on September [3, 2022 and the amount now due, after all credits and offsets, and exclusive of post-judgment interest, is $84,498.40. 4 Principal $62,361.50 5 The pre-judgment rate of interest is 10% beginning August 22, 2022 to date of judgment and totals $6,439.10. 6. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,072.80. 7 Costs of Court in the amount of $625.00. 8. The post judgment rate of interest specified in the judgment is 5% beginning on txsay after entry of the judgment, September 13, 2022 and continuing until the judgment is paid. Felix Digilov BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on October 14, 2022 personally appeared, FELIX DIGILOV, who swore on oath that the facts stated in this, of judgment are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct. Notary Public, State of Texas After recording, return to: Felix Digilov, Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, 24 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1400, Houston, TX 77046. Exhibit 2-1 AUDREY, 4865 873157691 eS Mynay (OW 126807821 29. 2024 76407847 ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT 06/08/23, 08:45:47 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS : 1, Felix Digilov, attomey of record for Larada Sciences, Inc., Judgment Plaintiff (herein. Judgment Creditor), certify as follows: 1 In Cause No. 210905337, Larada Sciences, Inc. v. Ditta Solutions, LLC, In the Third District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Judgment Creditor recovered a judgment against Judgment Debtor, Ditta Solutions, LLC. 2 Judgment Creditor’s address is as follows: Larada Sciences, Inc. c/o Felix Digilov, Douglas Smith, Kyle Thompson Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77046 Judgment Debtor’s addresses is as follows: Lice Clinics of America DFW Gustavo Romero 1850 Lakepointe Dr. Ste. 350 Lewisville, TX 75057-6443 Judgment Debtor’s date of birth is: 06/17/1959 The first 5 digits of Judgment Debtor’s social security number are: Hi Final Judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor on September 13, 2022 and the amount now due, after all credits and offsets, and exclusive of post-judgment interest, is $84,498.40. 4 Principal $62,361.50 5 The pre-judgment rate of interest is 10% beginning August 22, 2022 to date of judgment and totals $6,439.10. 6 Attomeys’ fees in the amount of $15,072.80. 4 Costs of Court in the amount of $625.00. 8. The post judgment rate of interest specified in the judgment is 5% beginning on fudw after entry of the judgment, September 13, 2022 and continuing until the judgment is paid. 9. There is now still due on this judgment the amounts set out above a Felix Digilov BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on October 14, 2022 personally appeared, FELIX a? DIGILOV, who swore on oath that the facts stated in this abs) f judgment are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct. \ Sf Notary Public, State of Texas After recording, return to: Felix Digilov, Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Sinith, 24 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1400, Houston, TX 77046. Exhibit 2-2 swe eee, AUDREY BRIOGi My Notary iD # 126607821 4891-6746-8089.1 Expires July 29, 2024 76407847 ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT 06/08/23, 08:45:47 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS § 1, Felix Digilov, attomey of record for Larada Sciences, Inc., Judgment Plaintiff (herein, Judgment Creditor), certify as follows I In Cause No. 210905337, Larada Sciences, Inc. v. Ditta Solutions, LLC, In the Third District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Judgment Creditor recovered a judgment against Judgment Debtor, Ditta Solutions, LLC. 2. Judgment Creditor’s address is as follows: Larada Sciences, Inc. c/o Felix Digilov, Douglas Smith, Kyle Thompson Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Sm