Preview
Filed: 3/10/2023 10:41 AM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 73543976
By: Shailja Dixit
3/10/2023 10:58 AM
CAUSE NO. 22-CV-1374
GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff §
§
§
§
vs. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
§
§
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES LTD., §
LLLP §
Defendant § 122 ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND COMPLIANCE
FROM DEFENDANT GULF SULPHUR SERVICES LTD., LLLP
Plaintiff Great River Industries, LLC (“GRI”) files this Motion to Compel
Production and Compliance from Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP (“Gulf
Sulphur”) and would show as follows:
I. SUMMARY OF THE MOTION
GRI, a tank construction contractor, has sued Gulf Sulphur in connection with
unpaid debts for the construction of tanks owned by Gulf Sulphur. Gulf Sulphur
countersued GRI for breaches of contract and warranty. Gulf Sulphur requested
multiple extensions of its deadline to produce responsive documents from GRI, and GRI
has granted each request. Still, Gulf Sulphur refuses to produce responsive documents
and refuses to properly label the documents it has produced. Instead, Gulf Sulphur has
elected to engage in a campaign of gamesmanship teeming with unfounded objections
and unrealized promises to produce responsive discovery. Regrettably, the Court’s
intervention is necessary to bring Gulf Sulphur into compliance.
II. RELEVANT FACTS
1. Gulf Sulphur contracted with GRI for GRI to remediate Gulf Sulphur’s
tanks at a commercial facility in Galveston, Texas.1
2. Gulf Sulphur’s refusal to pay GRI for the work GRI perform under the
agreement compelled GRI to sue Gulf Sulphur for breach of contract, quantum merit,
violations of the prompt pay statute, and unjust enrichment; GRI also filed suit to
foreclose a lien on the project.2
3. Gulf Sulphur generally denied GRI’s causes of action, alleges various
affirmative defenses, and filed a counterclaim alleging that GRI’s work was defective
and did not meet the standards in the parties’ agreement and that GRI breached the
agreement by failing to indemnify Gulf Sulphur. 3
4. On November 15, 2022, GRI served Gulf Sulphur with 30 requests for
production (“RFP”) due on December 15, 2022. 4 A day before its responses were due,
Gulf Sulphur requested a one-week extension. 5 GRI granted the request without
complaint or comment. 6
5. On December 21, 2022, Gulf Sulphur requested yet another extension
until December 28, 2022 “at the latest.”7 GRI granted the extension provided that Gulf
Sulphur agreed to provide documents on the new deadline. Gulf Sulphur agreed.8
1 See Pl.’s Original Pet., on file.
2 Id.
3 Def.’s First Am. Answer and Original Countercl, on file.
4 See Exhibit A – December Correspondence.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
6. On December 29, 2022, Gulf Sulphur served written objections to GRI’s
discovery requests.9 The next day, Gulf Sulphur provided a link to its production labeled
GSS00001-GSS02467. 10 Gulf Sulphur did not produce the documents as they were kept
in the usual course of business, nor did Gulf Sulphur label its production to correspond
with the categories in GRI’s RFPs.11
7. Compounding the confusion caused by their production method, Gulf
Sulphur objected to 19 of 30 RFPs while claiming it “will produce responsive documents”
to the same.12 Gulf Sulphur also claimed that it would produce documents for another
3 requests without objection.13
8. Despite multiple requests, Gulf Sulphur has yet to designate the
document ranges which correspond to each request.14
9. With respects to GRI’s second RFPs served January 6, 2023, Gulf Sulphur
has failed to produce any responsive documents, despite GRI’s courtesy of extending
Gulf Sulphur yet another deadline extension. 15 Highlighting the egregious nature of
this failure and the nature of Gulf Sulphur’s gamesmanship is its response to RFP 31.16
In it, Gulf Sulphur claims, that it “objects to this request as it uses the proper noun
‘Invoices’ but fails to define the word, making this request vague, ambiguous, and
9 See Exhibit B - Def.’s Obj. and Resp. to Pl.’s First Req. for Prod. (1-30)
10 Ex. A.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 See Exhibit C – January Correspondence; see also Exhibit D – February Deficiency Letter to
Defendant.
15 See Exhibit E – February Correspondence.
16 See Exhibit F - Def.’s Objections and Resp. to Pl.’s Second Req. for Prod.
misleading.” 17 This despite Gulf Sulphur’s response to RFP reading, in part: “[Gulf
Sulphur] will produce invoices.”18 Gulf Sulphur has no intention with complying with
the Rules and or even its own representations.
10. Further, certain of Gulf Sulphur’s answers and responses to GRI’s
Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) are also wanting and, at times,
bizarre. 19
11. For example, GRI asks Gulf Sulphur to identify all invoices, it contends
GRI failed to properly support or failed to submit within the time required by the
contract between the parties. 20 Rather than identifying the invoices—which
presumably could be done by providing a string of numbers— Gulf Sulphur’s objects
with a brief rant about how the instructions define “communications” and then
identifies a list of invoices without identifying if the same is exhaustive, thus leaving
GRI unsure as whether Gulf Sulphur has fully answered the interrogatory.21
12. In RFA’s 12-14, GRI asks Gulf Sulphur to confirm that it received
particular invoices from GRI for the Project. 22 Despite claiming offset as an affirmative
defense, Gulf Sulphur objects to RFA’s 12-14 because GRI failed to refer to said invoices
by number in its petition.23 In other words, despite alleging an affirmative defense
which necessarily requires the parties to calculate how much was requested and how
much was paid to each party, Gulf Sulphur incredibly claims that its receipt of certain
17 Id.
18 Ex. B.
19 See Exhibit G - Def.’s Obj. and Resp. to Pl.’s Second Req. for Admis and Second Set of Interrog.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.; see also Def.’s First Am. Answer and Original Countercl, on file.
invoices is not relevant. Again, Gulf Sulphur is clearly more interested in
gamesmanship than cohering the with Rules and avoiding providing information that
might help resolve this litigation.
III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
13. Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject
matter of the case. 24 Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 25 Of course, “the scope of
discovery is obviously much broader than the scope of admissible evidence.” 26 The
discovery process is designed “to allow the litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of
the facts and issues prior to trial, and ‘it does not matter that the information sought
may be inadmissible at trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.’” 27 The discovery process “is [designed] to seek the
truth, so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are
concealed.” 28
14. When a party fails to properly respond to discovery requests, the party
seeking discovery may move the Court for an order compelling the opposing party to
respond. 29 If the Court grants the moving party’s motion, the Court shall then—after
a hearing on the matter—require the party whose conduct warranted the motion to
24 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3.
25 Id.
26 In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 534 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 2009, no writ).
27 In re DCP Midstream, L.P., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11092, *29 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 7,
2014, no writ) (quoting Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1990)).
28 In re Summersett, 438 S.W.3d 74, 79 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no writ).
29 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b), 215.3, and 215.4.
pay the moving party’s reasonable expense and attorneys’ fees incurred in securing
the order to produce discovery responses. 30
15. Rule 196.2(a) required Gulf Sulphur to respond in accordance with Rule
196.2(b) by February 5, 2023 (and by agreement no later than February 21, 2023).
Because Gulf Sulphur has failed to do so, GRI asks this Court to compel the former’s
compliance. GRI also asks the Court to compel Gulf Sulphur to comply with Rule 196.3
by reproducing “documents and tangible things as they are kept in the usual course of
business or organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.”
16. Further, GRI asks this Court to compel Gulf Sulphur to remove its
objections to Interrogatory #12 and RFAs 12-14 and to provide complete answers and
responses within 5 days of the signing of an order stating the same.
PRAYER
Plaintiff Great River Industries, LLC respectfully asks the Court to enter an
order compelling Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP to produce materials
responsive to GRI’s requests for production as they are kept in the usual course of
business or organize or to label them to correspond with the categories in the request
within 5 days of this Court’s order, and to remove its objections to Interrogatory #12
and requests for admissions 12-14 and to provide complete answers and responses to
the same within 5 days of this Court’s order.
30 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(d).
ANDREWS MYERS, P.C.
By: /s/ Bryan Acklin
WILLIAM B. WESTCOTT
Texas Bar No.: 24028219
ben.westcott@andrewsmyers.com
BRYAN ACKLIN
Texas Bar No.: 24077689
backlin@andrewsmyers.com
1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor
Houston, Texas 77056
713-850-4200 – Telephone
713-850-4211 – Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this instrument has been
delivered to all counsel of record listed below under the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE on 10th day of March 2023.
VIA E-SERVICE
Steven J. Mitby
State Bar No. 24037123
smitby@mitbylaw.com
Debora S. Pacholder
State Bar No. 00784969
dpacholder@mitbylaw.com
Timothy W. Johnson
State Bar No. 24002366
tjohnson@mitbylaw.com
MITBY PACHOLDER JOHNSON, PLLC
1001 McKinney Street, Suite 925
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 234-1446
Attorneys for Defendant
Gulf Sulphur Services Ltd., LLLP
/s/ Bryan Acklin
BRYAN ACKLIN
Exhibit A
From: Ben Westcott
To: Timothy Johnson; Bryan Acklin
Subject: Re: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:45:36 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Thanks and Merry Christmas.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Timothy Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 11:44:48 AM
To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin
Subject: Re: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP
Thanks Ben. I confirm that we will be producing documents on that day.
Tim
From: Ben Westcott
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:29:10 AM
To: Timothy Johnson ; Bryan Acklin
Subject: RE: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP
If you will confirm that you will actually send us documents on that day, then the extension is fine. Is
that confirmed?
William B. “Ben” Westcott
Co-Managing Shareholder
Andrews Myers | Attorneys at Law
Houston | Austin
1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor, Houston, TX 77056
TEL: 713-850-4215
EMAIL: bwestcott@andrewsmyers.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Andrews Myers is a law firm. This electronic transmission and any attachments constitute confidential
information which is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may be legally privileged. If you have received this communication in
error, please contact the sender immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distr bution or the taking of any action concerning the contents
of this communication by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
From: Timothy Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 9:45 AM
To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin
Subject: RE: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP
Ben,
I’m going to need a few more days for the discovery responses. Can you give me until next
Wednesday at the latest?
Exhibit A
Tim
Timothy W. Johnson
Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC
Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002
Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697
Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com
From: Ben Westcott
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Timothy Johnson ; Bryan Acklin
Subject: RE: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP
Yes.
William B. “Ben” Westcott
Co-Managing Shareholder
Andrews Myers | Attorneys at Law
Houston | Austin
1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor, Houston, TX 77056
TEL: 713-850-4215
EMAIL: bwestcott@andrewsmyers.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Andrews Myers is a law firm. This electronic transmission and any attachments constitute confidential
information which is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may be legally privileged. If you have received this communication in
error, please contact the sender immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distr bution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of
this communication by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
From: Timothy Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin
Subject: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP
Ben and Bryan,
I hope you guys are doing well and will find time to enjoy the holiday season before the new year
kicks in. We are preparing responses to GRI’s discovery requests and documents for production.
The responses are due tomorrow and I’m requesting a 1 week extension to December 22 to provide
the responses and documents. Will GRI agree to this extension?
Thanks
Tim
Timothy W. Johnson
Exhibit A
Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC
Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002
Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697
Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com
Exhibit A
From: Timothy Johnson
To: Ben Westcott; Bryan Acklin
Cc: Geoff Litke; Jonathon Volz
Subject: RE: Great River Industries v Gulf Sulphur Services - 22-cv-1374;
Date: Friday, December 30, 2022 7:59:03 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Ben,
Below is a link to Defendant’s document production: Volume 1 – GSS00001 – GSS02467.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/crnvfll0jfuptam/GSS_Vol_1.zip?dl=0
Let me know if you have any issues downloading it.
Tim
Timothy W. Johnson
Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC
Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002
Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697
Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com
From: Timothy Johnson
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 8:33 PM
To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin
Cc: Geoff Litke ; Jonathon Volz
Subject: Great River Industries v Gulf Sulphur Services - 22-cv-1374;
Ben and Bryan,
I hope you guys have a great new year celebration. Attached are Defendant’s responses to the
outstanding discovery requests. We are preparing a volume of documents for production and will
get those out to you tomorrow.
Tim
Timothy W. Johnson
Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC
Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002
Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697
Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
CAUSE NO. 22-CV-1374
GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff §
§
§
§
v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
§
§
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES LTD., LLLP §
Defendant 122ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (1-30)
TO: Plaintiff, Great River Industries, LLC, by and through its attorneys of record, William
B. Wescott and Bryan Acklin of ANDREWS MYERS, P.C, 1885 Saint James Place,
15th Floor, Houston, Texas 77056.
Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP, serves the following Objections and
Responses to Plaintiff Great River Industries, LLC’s First Requests for Production pursuant to
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.
Respectfully submitted,
MITBY PACHOLDER JOHNSON PLLC
/s/Timothy W. Johnson
Steven J. Mitby
State Bar No. 24037123
smitby@mitbylaw.com
Debora S. Pacholder
State Bar No. 00784969
dpacholder@mitbylaw.com
Timothy W. Johnson
State Bar No. 24002366
tjohnson@mitbylaw.com
1001 Mckinney Street, Suite 925
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 234-1446
Exhibit B
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GULF
SULPHUR SERVICES, LTD, LLLP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Rules 21. and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that the
original of the Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for
Production was served on the following counsel on December 29, 2022:
Via EMAIL
William B. Westcott
ben.westcott@andrewsmyers.com
Bryan Acklin
backlin@andrewsmyers.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC
/s/Timothy W. Johnson
Timothy W. Johnson
Exhibit B
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following objections are generally applicable to all of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production.
1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ requests to the extent they purport to impose obligations on
Defendant beyond those permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they purport to require Defendant to
generate documents or data not presently in existence.
3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they seek discovery of confidential
information.
4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they purport to require production of
documents shielded from discovery by attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any
other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to Plaintiff’s improper attempt to include a
request for privilege log in the requests themselves.
5. Defendant objects to the relevant time period stated in the requests as overbroad, and will
answer the requests, subject to its other objections, for the period May 6, 2021 through present,
which is the period during which Reserve Yacht Club, LLC has owned the Marina.
6. A statement in response to any request for production that responsive documents will be
produced is not intended to, and shall not be construed to mean, that responsive documents in fact
exist or are within Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Rather, any such statements mean
only that, to the extent the documents specified exist, are within Defendant’s possession, custody or
control, are recoverable based on a reasonably diligent search (including reasonable limitations on
custodians of electronically stored information and search terms applicable in identifying and
gathering such information), and are not withheld on the basis of an objection or privilege, the
specified documents will be produced.
7. Defendant objects to producing responsive documents within the time frame specified by
Plaintiffs. Defendant will produce non-privileged, responsive documents not withheld on the basis
of an objection on a rolling basis as such documents are reasonably identified and reviewed.
Defendant reserves its right to supplement and/or amend this response.
8. These General Objections are incorporated into each of the following specific responses
below.
Exhibit B
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce any and all communications and documents
exchanged by and between Defendant and GRI related to the unpaid invoices that made the basis of
this suit.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to
“unpaid invoices that made the basis of this suit”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any
invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and has
failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged
invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid.
As reasonably understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all statements made by Defendant concerning
the subject matter of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to
“the subject matter of this lawsuit”, but Plaintiff only claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and
does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying
basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly
submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Although Defendants’
investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood, Defendant is not aware of any statements
concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce any and all documents and communications
related to Your evaluation or assessment of GRI’s claims for payment from You relating to the
unpaid invoices for the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to
“GRI’s claims for payment from You relating to the unpaid invoices for the Project”, but Plaintiff
only claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or
otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has
failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the
Exhibit B
contract but remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it requests
communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege.
Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents
will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce any and all documents and communications
evincing amounts due and owing from You to GRI for labor and materials furnished by GRI relating
to the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to
“documents and communications evincing amounts due and owing from You to GRI”, but
Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges
that it is owed a lump sum amount and has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed
amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to
Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. As reasonably understood, Defendant will
produce responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce any and all documents evincing any and
all payments You maid to GRI for labor and materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to
“documents and communications evincing any and all payments You maid [sic] to GRI for labor
and materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify
any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and
has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any
alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain
unpaid. Further, Plaintiff has documents showing the amounts it received from Defendant. As
reasonably understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce any and all documents and communications
evincing the labor and materials and/or services delivered by GRI to You related to the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to
“documents and communications evincing any and all payments You made to GRI for labor and
Exhibit B
materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any
invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and has
failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged
invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid.
Further, Plaintiff has documents showing the amounts it received from Defendant. As reasonably
understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce any and all documents evincing any credits,
offsets or back charges which You claim apply to any amounts otherwise due and owing from You
to GRI and GRI relating to the Project.
RESPONSE:
As reasonably understood, responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce any and all documents and internal
communications made by You related to the subject matter of this suit.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all
documents related to the “subject matter of this suit”. Defendant further objects this interrogatory
because it refers to “the subject matter of this suit”, but Plaintiff only claims that it is owed a lump
sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify
the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that
Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Defendant
further objects to this request on that basis that it requests communications that may be covered by
the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is
ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Any and all files or other documents related to the
Project and any defenses you have asserted or intend to assert.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all
documents related to the “Project and any defenses you have asserted or intend to assert”. Plaintiff
claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise.
Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify
any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but
remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to
include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive
documents will be produced.
Exhibit B
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce Defendant’s contract or contracts with the
GRI for the Project.
RESPONSE:
As reasonably understood, responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce copies of all payment applications, “draws”
and/or other requests for payment, including transmittal letters, GRI submitted to the Owner of the
Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request refers to “payment
applications, ‘draws’ and/or other requests for payment” which is different from “invoices” which
were used in the ordinary course and scope of business and required under the contract. Defendant
is unaware of any “payment applications, ‘draws’ and/or other requests for payment”. Defendant
will produce invoices.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce copies of all payments received by GRI from
the Owner of the Project, including dates of all payments received.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request seeks information and
documents that are in the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff because it is limited to
payments received by GRI. Further, Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does
not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis
for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly
submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. As reasonably understood
responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce copies of all checks received from any
source for the work GRI performed on the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As reasonably understood Plaintiff is
not aware of any responsive documents.
Exhibit B
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Produce copies of all checks and/or payments received
by Defendant from any source for the labor and/or materials furnished by GRI on the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, duplicative or prior requests, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information
that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As reasonably
understood Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce a copy of any notice of intent, lien affidavit
and/or demand for payment Defendant received from GRI in connection with any amounts you are
owed on the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request describes documents
“Defendant received from GRI in connection with any amounts you are owed on the Project”.
“You” is defined as Defendant. Defendant is unaware of any notice of intent, lien affidavit and/or
demand for payment the Defendant received from GRI in connection with any amounts Defendant
is owed on the Project.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce copies of all correspondence and
communications between GRI and the Owner of the Project concerning payment issues between
GRI and the Owner, including payment for any work performed and/or materials or services
furnished by GRI for which the Owner have not paid GRI.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump
sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify
the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that
Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Although
Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be
produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce a copy of all documents that evince
which persons were authorized to accept and/or disburse funds for You.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
Exhibit B
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all
“documents that evince which persons were authorized to accept and/or disburse funds for You”.
The request is not limited to any particular time period or any particular type of acceptance or
disbursement. Defendant maintains a general staff of people who are responsible for receiving
payments and making payments in the ordinary course of business. Although Defendants’
investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce any and all documents showing any and all
persons who You paid for work on the Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all
documents showing any person who Defendant paid for work on the Project which would include
Defendant’s own employees. Defendant objects to providing documents for payments to
employees or other similarly situated persons. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as
reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce any and all documents, evincing any
payments You made to other persons or entities funds given to You by the Project’s owner for the
Project.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant is unable to understand the
scope of this request including the phrase “payments You made to other persons or entities funds
given to you”. Moreover, Plaintiff defined terms “You” and “Owner” to be synonymous which
renders the phrase “given to You by the Project’s owner for the Project” nonsensical. As
reasonably understood Defendant is unaware of any responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Produce every document and communication You
identified as responsive in Your response under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 b(6), b(7),
b(8), and b(9).
Exhibit B
RESPONSE:
Where applicable, responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Any and all documents or communications
evincing the specific elements of Defendant’s affirmative defenses and specific denials, if any.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all
documents related to the “Defendant’s affirmative defenses and specific denials, if any”.
Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or
otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has
failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to
the contract but remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is
broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or
attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably
understood responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 1, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for
admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for
admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to
include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive
documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 2, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for
10
Exhibit B
admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for
admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to
include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive
documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 3, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for
admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for
admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to
include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive
documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 4, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly
broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for
admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for
admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to
include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive
documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 5, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
11
Exhibit B
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as
overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a
request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant
to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified
request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad
enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney
work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably
understood responsive documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be
produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 6, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as
overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a
request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant
to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified
request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad
enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney
work-product privilege.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission NO. 7, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said
denial.
RESPONSE:
Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant fur
Preview
Filed: 3/10/2023 10:41 AM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 73543976 By: Shailja Dixit 3/10/2023 10:58 AM CAUSE NO. 22-CV-1374 GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff § § § § vs. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § GULF SULPHUR SERVICES LTD., § LLLP § Defendant § 122 ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND COMPLIANCE FROM DEFENDANT GULF SULPHUR SERVICES LTD., LLLP Plaintiff Great River Industries, LLC (“GRI”) files this Motion to Compel Production and Compliance from Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP (“Gulf Sulphur”) and would show as follows: I. SUMMARY OF THE MOTION GRI, a tank construction contractor, has sued Gulf Sulphur in connection with unpaid debts for the construction of tanks owned by Gulf Sulphur. Gulf Sulphur countersued GRI for breaches of contract and warranty. Gulf Sulphur requested multiple extensions of its deadline to produce responsive documents from GRI, and GRI has granted each request. Still, Gulf Sulphur refuses to produce responsive documents and refuses to properly label the documents it has produced. Instead, Gulf Sulphur has elected to engage in a campaign of gamesmanship teeming with unfounded objections and unrealized promises to produce responsive discovery. Regrettably, the Court’s intervention is necessary to bring Gulf Sulphur into compliance. II. RELEVANT FACTS 1. Gulf Sulphur contracted with GRI for GRI to remediate Gulf Sulphur’s tanks at a commercial facility in Galveston, Texas.1 2. Gulf Sulphur’s refusal to pay GRI for the work GRI perform under the agreement compelled GRI to sue Gulf Sulphur for breach of contract, quantum merit, violations of the prompt pay statute, and unjust enrichment; GRI also filed suit to foreclose a lien on the project.2 3. Gulf Sulphur generally denied GRI’s causes of action, alleges various affirmative defenses, and filed a counterclaim alleging that GRI’s work was defective and did not meet the standards in the parties’ agreement and that GRI breached the agreement by failing to indemnify Gulf Sulphur. 3 4. On November 15, 2022, GRI served Gulf Sulphur with 30 requests for production (“RFP”) due on December 15, 2022. 4 A day before its responses were due, Gulf Sulphur requested a one-week extension. 5 GRI granted the request without complaint or comment. 6 5. On December 21, 2022, Gulf Sulphur requested yet another extension until December 28, 2022 “at the latest.”7 GRI granted the extension provided that Gulf Sulphur agreed to provide documents on the new deadline. Gulf Sulphur agreed.8 1 See Pl.’s Original Pet., on file. 2 Id. 3 Def.’s First Am. Answer and Original Countercl, on file. 4 See Exhibit A – December Correspondence. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 6. On December 29, 2022, Gulf Sulphur served written objections to GRI’s discovery requests.9 The next day, Gulf Sulphur provided a link to its production labeled GSS00001-GSS02467. 10 Gulf Sulphur did not produce the documents as they were kept in the usual course of business, nor did Gulf Sulphur label its production to correspond with the categories in GRI’s RFPs.11 7. Compounding the confusion caused by their production method, Gulf Sulphur objected to 19 of 30 RFPs while claiming it “will produce responsive documents” to the same.12 Gulf Sulphur also claimed that it would produce documents for another 3 requests without objection.13 8. Despite multiple requests, Gulf Sulphur has yet to designate the document ranges which correspond to each request.14 9. With respects to GRI’s second RFPs served January 6, 2023, Gulf Sulphur has failed to produce any responsive documents, despite GRI’s courtesy of extending Gulf Sulphur yet another deadline extension. 15 Highlighting the egregious nature of this failure and the nature of Gulf Sulphur’s gamesmanship is its response to RFP 31.16 In it, Gulf Sulphur claims, that it “objects to this request as it uses the proper noun ‘Invoices’ but fails to define the word, making this request vague, ambiguous, and 9 See Exhibit B - Def.’s Obj. and Resp. to Pl.’s First Req. for Prod. (1-30) 10 Ex. A. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 See Exhibit C – January Correspondence; see also Exhibit D – February Deficiency Letter to Defendant. 15 See Exhibit E – February Correspondence. 16 See Exhibit F - Def.’s Objections and Resp. to Pl.’s Second Req. for Prod. misleading.” 17 This despite Gulf Sulphur’s response to RFP reading, in part: “[Gulf Sulphur] will produce invoices.”18 Gulf Sulphur has no intention with complying with the Rules and or even its own representations. 10. Further, certain of Gulf Sulphur’s answers and responses to GRI’s Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) are also wanting and, at times, bizarre. 19 11. For example, GRI asks Gulf Sulphur to identify all invoices, it contends GRI failed to properly support or failed to submit within the time required by the contract between the parties. 20 Rather than identifying the invoices—which presumably could be done by providing a string of numbers— Gulf Sulphur’s objects with a brief rant about how the instructions define “communications” and then identifies a list of invoices without identifying if the same is exhaustive, thus leaving GRI unsure as whether Gulf Sulphur has fully answered the interrogatory.21 12. In RFA’s 12-14, GRI asks Gulf Sulphur to confirm that it received particular invoices from GRI for the Project. 22 Despite claiming offset as an affirmative defense, Gulf Sulphur objects to RFA’s 12-14 because GRI failed to refer to said invoices by number in its petition.23 In other words, despite alleging an affirmative defense which necessarily requires the parties to calculate how much was requested and how much was paid to each party, Gulf Sulphur incredibly claims that its receipt of certain 17 Id. 18 Ex. B. 19 See Exhibit G - Def.’s Obj. and Resp. to Pl.’s Second Req. for Admis and Second Set of Interrog. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id.; see also Def.’s First Am. Answer and Original Countercl, on file. invoices is not relevant. Again, Gulf Sulphur is clearly more interested in gamesmanship than cohering the with Rules and avoiding providing information that might help resolve this litigation. III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES 13. Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case. 24 Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 25 Of course, “the scope of discovery is obviously much broader than the scope of admissible evidence.” 26 The discovery process is designed “to allow the litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial, and ‘it does not matter that the information sought may be inadmissible at trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’” 27 The discovery process “is [designed] to seek the truth, so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed.” 28 14. When a party fails to properly respond to discovery requests, the party seeking discovery may move the Court for an order compelling the opposing party to respond. 29 If the Court grants the moving party’s motion, the Court shall then—after a hearing on the matter—require the party whose conduct warranted the motion to 24 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3. 25 Id. 26 In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 534 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 2009, no writ). 27 In re DCP Midstream, L.P., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11092, *29 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 7, 2014, no writ) (quoting Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1990)). 28 In re Summersett, 438 S.W.3d 74, 79 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no writ). 29 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b), 215.3, and 215.4. pay the moving party’s reasonable expense and attorneys’ fees incurred in securing the order to produce discovery responses. 30 15. Rule 196.2(a) required Gulf Sulphur to respond in accordance with Rule 196.2(b) by February 5, 2023 (and by agreement no later than February 21, 2023). Because Gulf Sulphur has failed to do so, GRI asks this Court to compel the former’s compliance. GRI also asks the Court to compel Gulf Sulphur to comply with Rule 196.3 by reproducing “documents and tangible things as they are kept in the usual course of business or organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.” 16. Further, GRI asks this Court to compel Gulf Sulphur to remove its objections to Interrogatory #12 and RFAs 12-14 and to provide complete answers and responses within 5 days of the signing of an order stating the same. PRAYER Plaintiff Great River Industries, LLC respectfully asks the Court to enter an order compelling Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP to produce materials responsive to GRI’s requests for production as they are kept in the usual course of business or organize or to label them to correspond with the categories in the request within 5 days of this Court’s order, and to remove its objections to Interrogatory #12 and requests for admissions 12-14 and to provide complete answers and responses to the same within 5 days of this Court’s order. 30 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(d). ANDREWS MYERS, P.C. By: /s/ Bryan Acklin WILLIAM B. WESTCOTT Texas Bar No.: 24028219 ben.westcott@andrewsmyers.com BRYAN ACKLIN Texas Bar No.: 24077689 backlin@andrewsmyers.com 1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor Houston, Texas 77056 713-850-4200 – Telephone 713-850-4211 – Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this instrument has been delivered to all counsel of record listed below under the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE on 10th day of March 2023. VIA E-SERVICE Steven J. Mitby State Bar No. 24037123 smitby@mitbylaw.com Debora S. Pacholder State Bar No. 00784969 dpacholder@mitbylaw.com Timothy W. Johnson State Bar No. 24002366 tjohnson@mitbylaw.com MITBY PACHOLDER JOHNSON, PLLC 1001 McKinney Street, Suite 925 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 234-1446 Attorneys for Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services Ltd., LLLP /s/ Bryan Acklin BRYAN ACKLIN Exhibit A From: Ben Westcott To: Timothy Johnson; Bryan Acklin Subject: Re: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:45:36 AM Attachments: image001.png Thanks and Merry Christmas. Get Outlook for iOS From: Timothy Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 11:44:48 AM To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin Subject: Re: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP Thanks Ben. I confirm that we will be producing documents on that day. Tim From: Ben Westcott Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:29:10 AM To: Timothy Johnson ; Bryan Acklin Subject: RE: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP If you will confirm that you will actually send us documents on that day, then the extension is fine. Is that confirmed? William B. “Ben” Westcott Co-Managing Shareholder Andrews Myers | Attorneys at Law Houston | Austin 1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor, Houston, TX 77056 TEL: 713-850-4215 EMAIL: bwestcott@andrewsmyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Andrews Myers is a law firm. This electronic transmission and any attachments constitute confidential information which is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may be legally privileged. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distr bution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. From: Timothy Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 9:45 AM To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin Subject: RE: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP Ben, I’m going to need a few more days for the discovery responses. Can you give me until next Wednesday at the latest? Exhibit A Tim Timothy W. Johnson Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002 Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697 Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com From: Ben Westcott Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:38 PM To: Timothy Johnson ; Bryan Acklin Subject: RE: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP Yes. William B. “Ben” Westcott Co-Managing Shareholder Andrews Myers | Attorneys at Law Houston | Austin 1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor, Houston, TX 77056 TEL: 713-850-4215 EMAIL: bwestcott@andrewsmyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Andrews Myers is a law firm. This electronic transmission and any attachments constitute confidential information which is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may be legally privileged. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distr bution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. From: Timothy Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:21 PM To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin Subject: 22-CV-1374 - Great River Industries, LLC v. Gulf Sulphur Services LTD, LLLP Ben and Bryan, I hope you guys are doing well and will find time to enjoy the holiday season before the new year kicks in. We are preparing responses to GRI’s discovery requests and documents for production. The responses are due tomorrow and I’m requesting a 1 week extension to December 22 to provide the responses and documents. Will GRI agree to this extension? Thanks Tim Timothy W. Johnson Exhibit A Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002 Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697 Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com Exhibit A From: Timothy Johnson To: Ben Westcott; Bryan Acklin Cc: Geoff Litke; Jonathon Volz Subject: RE: Great River Industries v Gulf Sulphur Services - 22-cv-1374; Date: Friday, December 30, 2022 7:59:03 PM Attachments: image001.png Ben, Below is a link to Defendant’s document production: Volume 1 – GSS00001 – GSS02467. https://www.dropbox.com/s/crnvfll0jfuptam/GSS_Vol_1.zip?dl=0 Let me know if you have any issues downloading it. Tim Timothy W. Johnson Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002 Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697 Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com From: Timothy Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 8:33 PM To: Ben Westcott ; Bryan Acklin Cc: Geoff Litke ; Jonathon Volz Subject: Great River Industries v Gulf Sulphur Services - 22-cv-1374; Ben and Bryan, I hope you guys have a great new year celebration. Attached are Defendant’s responses to the outstanding discovery requests. We are preparing a volume of documents for production and will get those out to you tomorrow. Tim Timothy W. Johnson Partner at Mitby Pacholder Johnson PLLC Address 1001 McKinney St, Suite 925 | Houston, Texas 77002 Office 713-234-1446 | Direct 713-234-1601 | Mobile 713-632-4697 Email tjohnsonr@mitbylaw.com | Website mitbylaw.com Exhibit A Exhibit B CAUSE NO. 22-CV-1374 GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff § § § § v. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § GULF SULPHUR SERVICES LTD., LLLP § Defendant 122ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (1-30) TO: Plaintiff, Great River Industries, LLC, by and through its attorneys of record, William B. Wescott and Bryan Acklin of ANDREWS MYERS, P.C, 1885 Saint James Place, 15th Floor, Houston, Texas 77056. Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP, serves the following Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Great River Industries, LLC’s First Requests for Production pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. Respectfully submitted, MITBY PACHOLDER JOHNSON PLLC /s/Timothy W. Johnson Steven J. Mitby State Bar No. 24037123 smitby@mitbylaw.com Debora S. Pacholder State Bar No. 00784969 dpacholder@mitbylaw.com Timothy W. Johnson State Bar No. 24002366 tjohnson@mitbylaw.com 1001 Mckinney Street, Suite 925 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 234-1446 Exhibit B ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, LTD, LLLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Rules 21. and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that the original of the Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production was served on the following counsel on December 29, 2022: Via EMAIL William B. Westcott ben.westcott@andrewsmyers.com Bryan Acklin backlin@andrewsmyers.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GREAT RIVER INDUSTRIES, LLC /s/Timothy W. Johnson Timothy W. Johnson Exhibit B GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following objections are generally applicable to all of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production. 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ requests to the extent they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they purport to require Defendant to generate documents or data not presently in existence. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they seek discovery of confidential information. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they purport to require production of documents shielded from discovery by attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to Plaintiff’s improper attempt to include a request for privilege log in the requests themselves. 5. Defendant objects to the relevant time period stated in the requests as overbroad, and will answer the requests, subject to its other objections, for the period May 6, 2021 through present, which is the period during which Reserve Yacht Club, LLC has owned the Marina. 6. A statement in response to any request for production that responsive documents will be produced is not intended to, and shall not be construed to mean, that responsive documents in fact exist or are within Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Rather, any such statements mean only that, to the extent the documents specified exist, are within Defendant’s possession, custody or control, are recoverable based on a reasonably diligent search (including reasonable limitations on custodians of electronically stored information and search terms applicable in identifying and gathering such information), and are not withheld on the basis of an objection or privilege, the specified documents will be produced. 7. Defendant objects to producing responsive documents within the time frame specified by Plaintiffs. Defendant will produce non-privileged, responsive documents not withheld on the basis of an objection on a rolling basis as such documents are reasonably identified and reviewed. Defendant reserves its right to supplement and/or amend this response. 8. These General Objections are incorporated into each of the following specific responses below. Exhibit B DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce any and all communications and documents exchanged by and between Defendant and GRI related to the unpaid invoices that made the basis of this suit. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “unpaid invoices that made the basis of this suit”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. As reasonably understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all statements made by Defendant concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “the subject matter of this lawsuit”, but Plaintiff only claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood, Defendant is not aware of any statements concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce any and all documents and communications related to Your evaluation or assessment of GRI’s claims for payment from You relating to the unpaid invoices for the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “GRI’s claims for payment from You relating to the unpaid invoices for the Project”, but Plaintiff only claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the Exhibit B contract but remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it requests communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce any and all documents and communications evincing amounts due and owing from You to GRI for labor and materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “documents and communications evincing amounts due and owing from You to GRI”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. As reasonably understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce any and all documents evincing any and all payments You maid to GRI for labor and materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “documents and communications evincing any and all payments You maid [sic] to GRI for labor and materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Further, Plaintiff has documents showing the amounts it received from Defendant. As reasonably understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce any and all documents and communications evincing the labor and materials and/or services delivered by GRI to You related to the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “documents and communications evincing any and all payments You made to GRI for labor and Exhibit B materials furnished by GRI relating to the Project”, but Plaintiff’s pleadings do not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that it is owed a lump sum amount and has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Further, Plaintiff has documents showing the amounts it received from Defendant. As reasonably understood, Defendant will produce responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce any and all documents evincing any credits, offsets or back charges which You claim apply to any amounts otherwise due and owing from You to GRI and GRI relating to the Project. RESPONSE: As reasonably understood, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce any and all documents and internal communications made by You related to the subject matter of this suit. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all documents related to the “subject matter of this suit”. Defendant further objects this interrogatory because it refers to “the subject matter of this suit”, but Plaintiff only claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it requests communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Any and all files or other documents related to the Project and any defenses you have asserted or intend to assert. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all documents related to the “Project and any defenses you have asserted or intend to assert”. Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced. Exhibit B REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce Defendant’s contract or contracts with the GRI for the Project. RESPONSE: As reasonably understood, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce copies of all payment applications, “draws” and/or other requests for payment, including transmittal letters, GRI submitted to the Owner of the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request refers to “payment applications, ‘draws’ and/or other requests for payment” which is different from “invoices” which were used in the ordinary course and scope of business and required under the contract. Defendant is unaware of any “payment applications, ‘draws’ and/or other requests for payment”. Defendant will produce invoices. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce copies of all payments received by GRI from the Owner of the Project, including dates of all payments received. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request seeks information and documents that are in the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff because it is limited to payments received by GRI. Further, Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. As reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce copies of all checks received from any source for the work GRI performed on the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As reasonably understood Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Exhibit B REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Produce copies of all checks and/or payments received by Defendant from any source for the labor and/or materials furnished by GRI on the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, duplicative or prior requests, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As reasonably understood Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce a copy of any notice of intent, lien affidavit and/or demand for payment Defendant received from GRI in connection with any amounts you are owed on the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request describes documents “Defendant received from GRI in connection with any amounts you are owed on the Project”. “You” is defined as Defendant. Defendant is unaware of any notice of intent, lien affidavit and/or demand for payment the Defendant received from GRI in connection with any amounts Defendant is owed on the Project. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce copies of all correspondence and communications between GRI and the Owner of the Project concerning payment issues between GRI and the Owner, including payment for any work performed and/or materials or services furnished by GRI for which the Owner have not paid GRI. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce a copy of all documents that evince which persons were authorized to accept and/or disburse funds for You. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably Exhibit B calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all “documents that evince which persons were authorized to accept and/or disburse funds for You”. The request is not limited to any particular time period or any particular type of acceptance or disbursement. Defendant maintains a general staff of people who are responsible for receiving payments and making payments in the ordinary course of business. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce any and all documents showing any and all persons who You paid for work on the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all documents showing any person who Defendant paid for work on the Project which would include Defendant’s own employees. Defendant objects to providing documents for payments to employees or other similarly situated persons. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce any and all documents, evincing any payments You made to other persons or entities funds given to You by the Project’s owner for the Project. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant is unable to understand the scope of this request including the phrase “payments You made to other persons or entities funds given to you”. Moreover, Plaintiff defined terms “You” and “Owner” to be synonymous which renders the phrase “given to You by the Project’s owner for the Project” nonsensical. As reasonably understood Defendant is unaware of any responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Produce every document and communication You identified as responsive in Your response under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 b(6), b(7), b(8), and b(9). Exhibit B RESPONSE: Where applicable, responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Any and all documents or communications evincing the specific elements of Defendant’s affirmative defenses and specific denials, if any. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request essentially seeks all documents related to the “Defendant’s affirmative defenses and specific denials, if any”. Plaintiff claims that it is owed a lump sum amount and does not identify any invoices, unpaid or otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to identify the underlying basis for the claimed amount and has failed to identify any alleged invoices that Plaintiff properly submitted to Defendant pursuant to the contract but remain unpaid. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 1, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 2, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for 10 Exhibit B admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 3, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 4, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 5, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. 11 Exhibit B RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. Although Defendants’ investigation is ongoing, as reasonably understood responsive documents, if any, generally related to the request for admission will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 6, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, vague, lacks particularity, and is seeking irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the denial of a request for admission is not an evidentiary fact but rather a procedural position taken pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant incorporates its response to the identified request for admission. Defendant further objects to this request on that basis that it is broad enough to include communications that may be covered by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: To the extent You deny Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission NO. 7, provide all documents and communications evincing the factual basis for said denial. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its general objections. Defendant fur