Preview
NO. 21-10-13810
MARIA RODRIGUEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
Vv. § 284th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
TERI BUCHANAN and PAUL BUCHANAN §
§
Defendant. § OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION
TO: TERI BUCHANAN and PAUL BUCHANAN Defendant, by and through their
attorney of record, Ted E. Dravis, Jr, BRETOI, LUTZ &STELE, 13620 N FM 620, Building B,
Suite 125, Austin, Texas 78717.
NOW COMES, MARIA RODRIGUEZ Plaintiff in the above numbered and entitled cause of
action and pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Response to Request for
Admissions:
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher J. Davila
Christopher J. Davila
State Bar No. 24095459
Jesus G. Davila
State Bar No. 05455270
6611 North Main Street
Houston, Texas 77009
(713) 868-8044
(713) 868-9122 — Fax
cdavila@thedavilalawfirm.com
jdavila@thedavilalawfirm..com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this the __ day of January 2022, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's answers to Defendant's
Interrogatories was served on opposing counsel by certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or hand
delivery and/or facsimile transmission and/or by first-class regular mail and/or e-filed/email.
/s/ Christopher J. Davila
Christopher J. Davila
ADMISSIONS
1. Admit that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, had a valid Texas Driver's license at the
time of the accident made the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: Admit.
2. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an
unlicensed driver.
ANSWER: Admit.
3. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, had been
involved in any other automobile accidents before the accident made the basis of this
lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App. .
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Plaintiff can not Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, had been
issued any traffic citations for moving violations before the accident made the basis of this
lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
5. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, knew
Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an incompetent driver prior to the incident
made the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
6. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, should have
known Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an incompetent driver prior to the
incident made the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [ist Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was a reckless
driver prior to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [ist Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
8. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, knew that
Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was a reckless driver prior to the incident made the
basis ofthis lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this
Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and
are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
ease. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
9. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant driver, TERI
BUCHANAN, was an incompetent driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the
basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [ist Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
10. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant driver, TERI
BUCHANAN, was a negligent driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the basis
of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
11. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant owner, PAUL
BUCHANAN, knew that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an unsafe driver prior
to the date of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S$.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
12. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant owner, PAUL
BUCHANAN, had reason to know that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an
unsafe driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that
this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials
and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be
used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses—
matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632
(Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per
curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as
demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or
ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when
used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a
case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly
Preview
NO. 21-10-13810 MARIA RODRIGUEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § Vv. § 284th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § TERI BUCHANAN and PAUL BUCHANAN § § Defendant. § OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO: TERI BUCHANAN and PAUL BUCHANAN Defendant, by and through their attorney of record, Ted E. Dravis, Jr, BRETOI, LUTZ &STELE, 13620 N FM 620, Building B, Suite 125, Austin, Texas 78717. NOW COMES, MARIA RODRIGUEZ Plaintiff in the above numbered and entitled cause of action and pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Response to Request for Admissions: Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher J. Davila Christopher J. Davila State Bar No. 24095459 Jesus G. Davila State Bar No. 05455270 6611 North Main Street Houston, Texas 77009 (713) 868-8044 (713) 868-9122 — Fax cdavila@thedavilalawfirm.com jdavila@thedavilalawfirm..com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this the __ day of January 2022, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's answers to Defendant's Interrogatories was served on opposing counsel by certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or hand delivery and/or facsimile transmission and/or by first-class regular mail and/or e-filed/email. /s/ Christopher J. Davila Christopher J. Davila ADMISSIONS 1. Admit that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, had a valid Texas Driver's license at the time of the accident made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Admit. 2. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an unlicensed driver. ANSWER: Admit. 3. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, had been involved in any other automobile accidents before the accident made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App. . Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Plaintiff can not Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, had been issued any traffic citations for moving violations before the accident made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 5. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, knew Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an incompetent driver prior to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 6. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, should have known Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an incompetent driver prior to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [ist Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was a reckless driver prior to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [ist Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 8. Admit that you have no evidence that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, knew that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was a reckless driver prior to the incident made the basis ofthis lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a ease. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 9. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an incompetent driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [ist Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 10. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was a negligent driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 11. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, knew that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an unsafe driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S$.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly 12. Admit that plaintiff has no documents or evidence that show that Defendant owner, PAUL BUCHANAN, had reason to know that Defendant driver, TERI BUCHANAN, was an unsafe driver prior to the date of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: OBJECTION: Plaintiff objects to this Request for Admission in that this Request is improper. Requests for Admissions are intended to simplify trials and are useful when addressing uncontroverted matters; they are not intended to be used to force a party to admit the validity of his claims or concede his defenses— matters Defendant knows to be in dispute. See Marino v. King, 335 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (noting that requests for admissions were not intended “to be used as demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense”). Requests for admission are improper and ineffective when used to establish controverted issues that constitute the fundamental legal issues in a case. See Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also, Ramirez v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). Subject to objection: Discovery is ongoing. Will supplement accordingly