Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
6/28/2019 10:42 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Darling Tellez
CAUSE NO. DC-18-05978
ASHLEY HOLBERT, INDIVIDUALLY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF K.H., A MINOR §
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE §
ESTATE OF ROWDY LEE HOLBERT, §
DECEASED AND DONNA HOLBERT §
§
Plaintiffs §
§
and §
§
BIG B CRANE, LLC AND §
INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE §
COMPANY OF HANOVER S.E. §
§
Intervenors, §
§
vs. § 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; §
CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES §
GROUP, LLC; NGP CAPITAL §
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SERVA §
CORPORATION §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
INTERVENOR BIG B CRANE, LLC’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM
DEFENDANT CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, BIG B CRANE, LLC, an Intervenor, and files this its Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses from Defendant Cretic Energy Services, LLC (“Defendant”) and would
respectfully show unto the Court the following:
I.
This lawsuit arises out of a failure of equipment and operations at an oil field lease in
Reagan County that resulted in a fatality on January 11, 2018. Defendant Cretic Energy Services,
LLC was contracted to provide coil tubing equipment and services at the site.
On April 23, 2019, Intervenor’s counsel served Defendant with Interrogatories, Requests
for Admissions and Requests for Production. Intervenor gave the Defendant an extension to June
13, 2019, to respond to the written discovery. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses
to those discovery requests are attached as Exhibit A.
In the original petition in this action, Plaintiffs alleged that when the fatal accident occurred
the Defendant was supervising the erection of the Defendant’s “Cretic Commander” extraction
system. The original petition then alleged that a single-unit, hinge mounted blow-out preventer
with lubricator portion of the of the Cretic Commander extraction system was being raised, when
the blow-out preventer and lubricator portion of the extraction system fell and killed Rowdy
Holbert. In its written discovery, the Intervenor defined the Cretic Commander as the extraction
system to avoid arguments that the piece of equipment that fell included something more than
blowout preventers and lubricators. In answering the written discovery, Defendant contended that
the Cretic Commander could only refer to the hydraulic control unit manufactured by Serva
Corporation, who has been nonsuited as a defendant in this action by the Plaintiffs and the
Intervenor.
Defendant asserted numerous objections to Intervenor’s discovery requests, provided
incomplete responses to some requests, and refused to provide substantive responses to other
requests. The evasive answers found predicate primarily on Defendant’s limiting the definition of
“Cretic Commander” to the control unit manufactured by an unaffiliated company, Serva
Corporation. Intervenor has requested that Defendant amend or supplement its responses to the
written discovery requests, but Defendant has failed to comply with Intervenor’s requests.
Intervenor’s written correspondence to Defendant regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s
responses is attached as Exhibit B.
II.
According to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1 (b), a court may compel a party to
respond adequately to requests for production and interrogatories. Defendant Cretic Energy
Services did not respond adequately to Intervenors’ Request for Production and Interrogatories as
required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1. Therefore, the Court should compel Defendant
Cretic Energy Services to comply with the rule. Defendant’s responses are inadequate for the
following reasons:
a. Defendant Cretic Energy Services did not verify their responses to interrogatories.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.2 (d) requires the interrogatories to by verified by
Defendant Cretic Energy Services.
b. Defendant Cretic Energy Services failed to respond to interrogatory numbers 3-6, 10,
12, 13, and 17-28. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1 requires the party to make a
“complete response” to a discovery request.
c. Defendant Cretic Energy Services failed to respond to Requests for Production
numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-27, 30, 32-37, 44, 48, 49, 53 and 54. Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 193.1 requires the party to make a “complete response” to a discovery
request. According to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.3 (a), a party must produce
all the documents and things that are requested, discoverable, in its possession (actual
or constructive), and not subject to an objection.
d. Defendant Cretic Energy Services failed to respond to Request for Admission numbers
1-34. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198.2(b) requires the responding party to
specifically admit or deny the request or explain in detail the reasons that the
responding party cannot admit or deny the request. Furthermore, the responding party
may qualify an answer, or deny a request in part, only when good faith requires.
III.
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1 (d) the Court may grant such relief as it deems
just.
IV.
For the above reasons, Intervenor asks the Court to set this motion for hearing and, after
the hearing, to compel Defendant Cretic Energy Services to supplement their discovery responses,
to verify its answers to Intervenor’s interrogatories, and to provide its amended/supplemental
responses within 10 days from the date of the Court’s order. Finally, Intervenor asks for such relief
as the Court deems just under Rule 215, and for any other relief that it is entitled to.
Respectfully submitted,
BURT BARR & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
BY: /s/ M. Forest Nelson
JOHN HOLMAN BARR
SBN: 01798700
M. FOREST NELSON
SBN: 14904625
MARY CHRISTIAN BARR
SBN: 24082586
P.O. BOX 223667
DALLAS, TX 75222-3667
(214) 943-0012 TELEPHONE
(214) 943-0048 FACSIMILE
jbarr@bbarr.com
fnelson@bbarr.com
mcbarr@bbarr.com
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that I transmitted the attached meet and confer letter to Defendant Cretic Energy
Services’ counsel of record on June 17, 2019, and never received any communication back from
Cretic Energy Service’s counsel before this motion was filed. Intervenor’s counsel will work with
Cretic Energy Services’ counsel to try and resolve the disputes set forth in this motion. This motion
is submitted to the Court for consideration.
/s/ M. Forest Nelson
M. Forest Nelson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on 28th day of June, 2019, a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document was filed and served on all counsel of record by ECF filing pursuant to the
TRCP.
/s/ M Forest Nelson
M. Forest Nelson
EXHIBIT A
NO. DC-18-05978
ASHLEY HOLBERT, Individually and as
) IN THE 101ST DISTRICT COURT
Next Friend of K.H., a Minor and as
)
Representative of the Estate of ROWDY LEE
)
HOLBERT, Deceased, and DONNA )
HOLBERT, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
VS. ) IN AND FOR
)
CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; )
CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, )
LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; )
and SERVA CORPORATION, )
)
Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY
SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’s
RESPONSES TO INTERVENOR BIG B CRANE, LLC’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
TO: Intervenor BIG B CRANE, by and through their attorneys of record, Mr. John Holman Barr,
P. O. Box 223667, Dallas, Texas 75222-3667.
Come now CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (incorrectly named in
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition as NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC), three of the Defendants in
the above-entitled and numbered cause, and responds to Intervenor BIG B CRANE, LLC’s First Set
of Interrogatories as follows:
See attached.
Respectfully submitted,
PETERSON FARRIS BYRD & PARKER
A Professional Corporation
P. O. Box 9620
Amarillo, TX 79105-9620
(806) 374-5317; FAX: 372-2107
cparker@pf-lawfirm.com
/s/ Chris D. Parker
Chris D. Parker; SB#15479100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the above-named court, using the electronic case filing system of the
court. Pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following attorneys of
record were served electronically:
Charles M. Noteboom
Brian W. Butcher
Noteboom Law Firm
669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100
Hurst, TX 76053
butcher@noteboom.com
John Holman Barr
Burt Barr & Associates, LLP
P.O. Box 223667
Dallas, TX 75222-3667
jbarr@bbarr.com
/s/ Chris D. Parker
Chris D. Parker
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant objects to each and all of the interrogatories contained in Big B's First Set of
Written Interrogatories to the extent that such written discovery is or purport to be subject to the
"definitions" preceding such interrogatories, for the reason that such definitions, construed in
conjunction with one another and in conjunction with the language of the interrogatories
themselves, cause each and all of such interrogatories to be overly broad, vague, ambiguous,
burdensome, and oppressive. Furthermore, when construed in conjunction with such written
interrogatories, such definitions and instructions cause such interrogatories to be of sufficient
breadth to call for information which is privileged under the attorney-client privilege or which is
protected from discovery under the attorney work product doctrine.
This Defendant further objects to such definitions and instructions preceding Big B's First
Set of Written Interrogatories for the reason that such definitions and instructions impose an undue
burden upon Defendant to attempt to decipher the language of each written interrogatory in
accordance with the language of the purported definitions and instructions, and for the reason that
such definitions and instructions tend to impose upon Defendant certain burdens which are not
imposed by law or by the rules of procedure governing this action.
With respect to the foregoing objections, this Defendant states that Defendant wholly rejects
Big B's attempt to redefine commonly used words, and state that they will interpret the
interrogatories in accordance with the common understanding of the language used in the specific
interrogatories without any regard or thought to the definitions as stated by Big B.
Defendant further, and more specifically objects to the definition of the word "identify" for
the reason that such definition purports to impose the responsibility for providing a broad array of
information that does not necessarily include the "identity" of an individual or document, and the
same is overly broad and burdensome.
Defendant further objects to any instructions preceding any of the interrogatories as such
instructions impose obligations and burdens outside the scope of permissible discovery and will not
be followed.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please state whether CRETIC, its agents, employees, independent contractors, attorneys
or any other representatives ever received any oral or written notices, claims or complaints
concerning injuries or property damage alleged to have occurred relating to the Cretic
Commander, including its transport and assembly. The search for this information should
include, but not be limited to, reports from district and other field representatives, computer files,
field contract reports, claims, investigation reports, litigation request forms, customer assistance
case records, preliminary investigation reports, service investigation reports, police reports,
service reports and dealer or customer complaint letters. Please "identify" each such notice,
claim, or complaint by "identifying" the person who has made such a claim, or has reported such
an incident to "you"; the date of each incident giving rise to the claim or report; describing each
incident, and stating the date "you" first became aware of the claim or incident.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, none.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please identify each lawsuit, arbitration or legal proceeding initiated against CRETIC that
related to a Cretic Commander, including its transport and assembly.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, none.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Please identify each person that worked on the design for the Cretic Commander,
including the equipment used to transport and assemble the Cretic Commander, this includes
CRETIC employees, officers, agents, representatives and independent contractors.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the
persons who worked on the design for the Commander. The Commander is a hydraulic control
unit manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Please identify each person that participated in the manufacture of the Cretic Commander
- including the equipment used to transport and assemble the Cretic Commander at the job site -
involved in the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the
persons who worked on the design for the Commander. The Commander is a hydraulic control
unit manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Please identify each person that participated in the development of warnings for the
Cretic Commander - including the equipment used to transport and assemble the Cretic
Commander at the job site - involved in the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the
persons who worked on the design for the Commander. The Commander is a hydraulic control
unit manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all tests and studies performed to determine whether the transportation and
assembly of the Cretic Commander at a job site could be safely performed with the equipment
and methodology used by CRETIC. Identify each test by the following:
(a) type of test (by name or description);
(b) the date of the test; and
(c) the person, persons, or entity who performed the test.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not perform any tests or studies
regarding the transportation and assembly of the Commander.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Identify your impeachment and rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent it seeks to invade the
attorney work product privileges regarding what witnesses may be called at trial. Moreover,
rebuttal witnesses are witnesses whose testimony cannot be anticipated. Defendant further
objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent it is an effort to require Defendant to marshal all of its
evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objections:
Ashley Holbert
K.H., Minor
Estate of Rowdy Lee Holbert
Donna Holbert
c/o Charles M. Noteboom
Brian W. Butcher
Noteboom The Law Firm
669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100
Hurst, Texas 76053
(817) 282-9700
(817) 282-8073 – fax
Plaintiffs
Cretic Energy Services, LLC
Catapult Energy Services Group, LLC
NGP Energy Capital Management, LLC
John Bear – District Manager for Cretic Energy Services
c/o Chris D. Parker
Peterson Farris Byrd & Parker
A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 9620
Amarillo, Texas 79105-9620
(806) 374-5317
8(06) 372-2107—fax
Defendants
Big B. Crane, LLC
International Insurance Company of Hanover S.E
Jack Coleman – Crane Safety Coordinator
c/o John Holman Barr
Mary Christian Barr
Burt Barr & Associates, LLP
P.O. Box 223667
Dallas, Texas 75222-3667
(214) 943-0012
(214) 943-0048 – fax
Intervenors
SERVA CORPORATION
c/o John W. McChristian, Jr.
Sunny L. Smith
Ray, McChristian & Jeans, P.C.
101 Summit Avenue, Suite 705
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 335-7201
(817) 335-7335 facsimile
Defendant
South Plains Forensic Pathology, P.A.
P.O. Box 64813
Lubbock, Texas 79464-4813
and
202 Avenue Q
Lubbock, Texas 79415
(806) 790-9611
Performed Autopsy
Clayton Kay Vaughn Funeral Home
505 E. Main Street
Itasca, Texas 76055
(254) 687-2371
Reagan County Sheriff’s Department
Deputy Sanders
Deputy Bree Darnell
Captain Jason McGhee
Sheriff Garner
320 N. Plaza
Big Lake, TX 76932
(325) 884-2424
Performed accident investigation
Reagan Memorial Hospital
Dr. Koenig
and its agents and custodian of records
1300 N. Main Ave.
Big Lake, TX 76932
(325) 884-2561
Deceased’s medical provider
Reagan County EMS
John Longoria, EMT
Tach Martin, EMT
and its agents and custodians of record
207 N. Plaza
Big Lake, TX 76932
(325) 884-3650
Deceased’s medical provider
Justice of the Peace Patty Creech
300 N. Plaza Ave.
Big Lake, TX 76932
(325) 884-3482
Ordered autopsy
Hill County Sheriff’s Office
406 Hall St.
Hillsboro, TX 76645
(254) 582-5313
Performed death notification
John Mackenzie Morrison
2824 Northtown Place
Midland, TX 79705
(702) 241-6017
Witness
Anthony John Griese
185 E. 3rd St.
Sebastian, TX 78594
(325) 939-9883
Witness
Jack Davis Coleman
6816 Fryer St.
The Colony, TX 75056
(469) 644-8351
Witness
Ricardo Estrada, Jr.
7234 W. Military Rd.
Mission, TX 78572
(956) 252-7404
Witness
Carlos Avalos
417 Grambling Ct.
El Paso, TX 79907
(915) 525-5159
Witness
Dexter Deon Williams
5985 Hwy. 79 N.
Deberry, TX 75633
(903) 690-4925
Witness
Monty Austin Horton
223 CR 3802
Hawkins, TX 75765
(903) 780-0860
Witness
Josef Michael Aragon
1506 Grayson Dr.
Longview, TX 75604
(903) 736-4813
Witness
Milton A. Light
104 Davis
Parkin, AR 72373
(432) 250-9228
Witness
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Please state the existence, description, nature, custody, and location of documents that are
relevant or will lead to relevant evidence regarding the captioned action.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is overly broad and
fails to identify, with reasonable particularity, the description of the documents sought.
Moreover, Interrogatory No. 8 seeks to invade the attorney work product privilege in that it
requires defense counsel to determine what documents may or may not be relevant.
Subject to the foregoing objections, Big B is referred to the documents previously
produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Please identify all experts used for consultation and who are not expected to be called as
a witness at trial, whose work product forms the basis, either in whole or in part, of the mental
impressions and opinions of an expert who may be called as a witness, or whose opinions or
impressions have been reviewed by an expert who may be called to testify. With regard to each
consulting expert identified, specifically identify the following:
a. The name, telephone number, address, occupation and field of specialization and
qualifications of such witness to testify as an expert; and
b. The subject matter of such witness's mental impressions and opinions; and the
facts known to the expert which relate to or form the basis of the mental
impressions and opinions held by the expert.
ANSWER: Defendant has not retained any consulting experts at the present time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Identify all warnings and instructions you contend were supplied to Big B or Rowdy Lee
Holbert, before the incident that forms the basis of lawsuit, regarding the risk or danger related
to the transport and assembly of the Cretic Commander at a jobsite.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any warnings or
instructions provided to Big B or Mr. Holbert regarding the Commander hydraulic control unit.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify each person answering these interrogatories as well as the interrogatories
answered by each person.
ANSWER: Chris D. Parker
Peterson Farris Byrd & Parker
P.O. Box 9620
Amarillo, TX 79105
Lonnie Stoute
Asset Manager
Cretic Energy Services
11003 West CR 72
Midland, TX 79707
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Identify every design for the Cretic Commander as well as its transport and assembly that
was considered by you, before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not consider any designs for the
Commander hydraulic control unit. Rather, the Commander hydraulic control unit was
manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Identify every manufacturing process/methodology that was considered by you for the
Cretic Commander as well as its transport and assembly, before the incident that forms the basis
of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not consider any manufacturing
process/methodology for the Commander hydraulic control unit. Rather, the Commander
hydraulic control unit was manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Do “you” claim that Rowdy Lee Holbert was negligent or at fault in a way which was a
proximate cause of the injuries or damages made the basis of this lawsuit? If so, describe the act
and effect of each such act of negligence or wrongful conduct alleged.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 14 to the extent it seeks to require
Defendant to marshal its evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, it appears Mr. Holbert was negligent in several
respects including, but not limited to, the following:
1) Failure to rig up the load;
2) Negligently instructing Cretic employees to tape the safety latch on the hook shut;
3) Failure to control the load;
4) Placement of the crane.
Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Do “you” claim that any other person or entity (whether a party to this lawsuit or not)
was negligent or at fault in a way which was a proximate cause of the injuries or damages made
the basis of this suit? If so, “identify” each such person or entity and describe the act and effect
of each such act of negligence or wrongful conduct alleged.
ANSWER: Bib B failed to properly train and supervise Mr. Holbert. In addition, Big B
furnished Mr. Holbert with defective and unsafe equipment.
Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Please fully describe your contentions as to how the incident made the basis of this
lawsuit occurred.
ANSWER: It appears the cable being used to lift the load came out of the hook provided by
Big B to Mr. Holbert thereby allowing the load to fall toward the cab of the crane. Big B is
further referred to Defendant’s response to Interrogatory No. 14. Discovery is ongoing and
Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Identify witnesses most knowledgeable with the Cretic Commander and its transport and
assembly, including the existence, location, and custodian of documents or physical evidence
pertaining to:
a. The manufacture of the Cretic Commander.
b. The transport of the Cretic Commander, including how to secure the Cretic
Commander for transport to a job site.
c. The design of the Cretic Commander.
d. The development of warnings for the Cretic Commander, including its transport and
assembly.
e. Identify the custodian of filmed tests of the Cretic Commander, including its transport
and assembly.
f. Identify the custodian at CRETIC of alternative designs, tests and drawings of the
Cretic Commander and its transport and assembly.
h. Identify the person or persons responsible for the quality control of the Cretic
Commander’s manufacture, transport, and assembly.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection,
a. Serva
b. Lonnie Stoute
Asset Manager
Cretic Energy Services
11003 West CR 72
Midland, TX 79707
John Bear
Cretic Energy Services
11003 West CR 72
Midland, TX 79707
Cretic Energy Services District Manager
Christie Orson
Cretic Energy Services
11003 West CR 72
Midland, TX 79707
Field Safety / DOT Representative
Dexter Williams
5985 Hwy 79 N
Deberry, TX 75633
Cretic supervisor
Josef Michael Aragon
1506 Grayson Dr.
Longview, TX 75604
Cretic operator
Dexter Lakeith Hines
6201 FM 248
Marion, TX 75564
Cretic N2 operator
Monte Austin Horton
223 CR 3802
Hawkins, TX 75765
Cretic ground hand
Rickey Darnell
Cretic ground hand
Milton A. Light
104 Davis
Parkin, AR 72373
Cretic pump operator
c. Serva
d. Serva
e. Unknown
f. None
h. Serva
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Identify the composition of the materials that secured the Cretic Commander for the
transport to the job site where the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit occurred.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit is a trailer that
contains the control unit and is transported to the job site by a tractor.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
What method, if any, was used to assure that the Cretic Commander could be safely
removed from its transport carrier and assembled at the job site.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 19 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit was not
removed from its carrier, nor was it assembled at the job site.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, did CRETIC or any of its
affiliates, joint venturers, parent, subsidiaries, divisions or contractors perform any testing to
determine the integrity, safe transport, and safe assembly of the Cretic Commander to a job site?
If so, please describe the tests including films, tapes, photos, notes, results and documents related
to such tests. If no tests were performed, state the reason(s), if any, why such tests were not
performed.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, was CRETIC aware that the
process and methodology for transporting and assembling the Cretic Commander at a job site
presented a foreseeable risk of bodily injury or property damage.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, none.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
Did CRETIC or any of its subsidiaries, divisions or contractors conduct studies relating to
the transport and assembly of the Cretic Commander at a job site? If so, provide the results of
such studies. If not, state the reason(s) why, if any, such studies were not performed.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, did CRETIC or any of its
affiliates, joint venturers, parent, subsidiaries, divisions or contractors perform any testing to
determine the integrity, safe transport, and safe assembly of the Cretic Commander to a job site?
If so, please describe the tests including films, tapes, photos, notes, results and documents related
to such tests. If no tests were performed, state the reason(s), if any, why such tests were not
performed.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
During December 2017 and January 2018, what quality assurance tests, if any, were
performed by any of the defendants, regarding the transport and assembly of the Cretic
Commander involved in incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests.
INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
Do you contend that any other entity or person was the manufacturer of the Cretic
Commander and the method for securing the Cretic Commander for transport and ultimately
assembly? If so, state the name of the entity or person and its relationship to CRETIC.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit was
manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
Has CRETIC ever considered changing the design of the Cretic Commander, the
methodology for transporting the Cretic Commander, or the methodology for assembling the
Cretic Commander? If "yes" describe the alternate design or methodology, including when such
alternatives were considered, identify who suggested the alternatives, why the alternatives were
considered, and why the alternatives were not used.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 26 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, no.
INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
Do you contend that any other entity or person was the manufacturer of the Cretic
Commander or developer of the method for securing the Cretic Commander for transport and
ultimately assembly? If so, state the name of the entity or person and its relationship to CRETIC.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 27 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit was
manufactured by Serva.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
Does CRETIC have any internal memoranda, meeting minutes, notes, reports, data,
correspondence or other documents relating to the design of the Cretic Commander and the
methodology for transporting and assembling the Cretic Commander? If so, identify those
documents with sufficient clarity so that a request for production might be served, or produce
copies of such documents.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 28 on the grounds that it is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, none.
NO. DC-18-05978
ASHLEY HOLBERT, Individually and as
) IN THE 101ST DISTRICT COURT
Next Friend of K.H., a Minor and as
)
Representative of the Estate of ROWDY LEE
)
HOLBERT, Deceased, and DONNA )
HOLBERT, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
VS. ) IN AND FOR
)
CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; )
CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, )
LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; )
and SERVA CORPORATION, )
)
Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY
SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’s
RESPONSES TO BIG B CRANE, LLC’s FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO: Intervenor BIG B CRANE, by and through their attorneys of record, Mr. John Holman Barr,
P. O. Box 223667, Dallas, Texas 75222-3667.
Come now CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (incorrectly named in
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition as NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC), three of the Defendants in
the above-entitled and numbered cause, and responds to Big B Crane, LLC’s First Request for
Production as follows:
See attached.
Respectfully submitted,
PETERSON FARRIS BYRD & PARKER
A Professional Corporation
P. O. Box 9620
Amarillo, TX 79105-9620
(806) 374-5317; FAX: 372-2107
cparker@pf-lawfirm.com
/s/ Chris D. Parker
Chris D. Parker; SB#15479100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the above-named court, using the electronic case filing system of the
court. Pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following attorneys of
record were served electronically:
Charles M. Noteboom
Brian W. Butcher
Noteboom Law Firm
669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100
Hurst, TX 76053
butcher@noteboom.com
John Holman Barr
Burt Barr & Associates, LLP
P.O. Box 223667
Dallas, TX 75222-3667
jbarr@bbarr.com
/s/ Chris D. Parker
Chris D. Parker
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant objects to each and all of the requests contained in Big B’s Request for
Production to the extent that such written discovery is or purports to be subject to the "definitions"
preceding such requests, for the reason that such definitions, construed in conjunction with one
another and in conjunction with the language of the requests themselves, cause each and all of such
requests to be overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and oppressive. Furthermore, when
construed in conjunction with such written requests, such definitions and instructions cause such
requests to be of sufficient breadth to call for information which is privileged under the attorney-
client privilege or which is protected from discovery under the attorney work product doctrine.
Defendant further objects to such definitions and instructions preceding Big B’s Request for
Production for the reason that such definitions and instructions impose an undue burden upon
Defendant to attempt to decipher the language of each written request in accordance with the
language of the purported definitions and instructions, and for the reason that such definitions and
instructions tend to impose upon Defendant certain burdens which are not imposed by law or by the
rules of procedure governing this action.
With respect to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that they wholly reject Big B’s
attempt to redefine commonly used words, and state that they will interpret the requests in
accordance with the common understanding of the language used in the specific requests without
any regard or thought to the definitions as stated by Big B.
Defendant further, and more specifically, objects to the definition of the word "identify" for
the reason that such definition purports to impose the responsibility for providing a broad array of
information that does not necessarily include the "identity" of an individual or document, and the
same is overly broad and burdensome.
Defendant further objects to any instructions preceding any of the requests as such
instructions impose obligations and burdens outside the scope of permissible discovery and will not
be followed.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: Produce all documents relating to the purchase orders,
contracts, certificates of title, receipts, bills of sale, agreements, titles, warranty, repair, service,
and maintenance history of the Cretic Commander.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 1 on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The Commander Hydraulic Control Unit did not have
anything to do with the accident in question.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2: Produce all photographs, video tapes, drawings, diagrams,
measurements, reports, statements, communications, records, and documents which are relevant
to the incident scene, the Cretic Commander involved in the incident made the basis of this
lawsuit and vehicle used to transport the Cretic Commander to the incident scene.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 2 on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Big B is referred to those documents previously
produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Produce any recordings of any 911 phone call(s) relating
to the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendant is not in possession of such calls at this time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: Produce all documents reflecting or relating to notice of
recalls, notice of service, technical bulletins, consumer notifications, or other type of notice you
sent regarding necessary repairs, maintenance, and service applicable to the Cretic Commander,
its components, and its mode of transportation to a job site.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 4 on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not send any such notices.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: Produce all petitions, complaints, consumer complaints,
product complaint reports or other documents relating to claims or comments received by or
made known to CRETIC alleging defects in or failures of the Cretic Commander, its
components, the mode of its transportation to a job site, or the methodology for its assembly.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 5 on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, none.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: Produce documents you relied upon to answer the Big
B’s interrogatories to you.
RESPONSE: Big B is referred to those documents previously produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: Produce all documents, including but not limited to all
engineering drawings, relating to the design, manufacture, assembly, testing, and evaluation of
the Cretic Commander as well as its transport and assembly.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 7 on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not in possession of any engineering
drawings for the Commander Hydraulic Control Unit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: Produce all repair manuals, service manuals, and technical
service bulletins relating to the Cretic Commander and its transport to and assembly at the job
site.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 8 on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, none.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: Produce all documents, statements, reports,
communications, tests, and materials that relate to how the subject accident and decedent's
injuries occurred, including but not limited to the events and circumstances leading up to and
surrounding the incident; when you first become aware of the subject accident; how the incident
occurred, and each fact that demonstrates plaintiff's decedent may have contributed or caused the
incident that is the subject of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 9 on the grounds that it is overly
broad and fails to identify, with reasonable particularity, the documents sought.
Subject to the foregoing objections, Big B is referred to the documents previously
produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: Produce all documents, statements, reports, records,
communications, tests, and other materials that relate to the consideration of or use of any
alternative design relating to Cretic Commander or alternative methodology
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 6/28/2019 10:42 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Darling Tellez CAUSE NO. DC-18-05978 ASHLEY HOLBERT, INDIVIDUALLY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF K.H., A MINOR § AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE § ESTATE OF ROWDY LEE HOLBERT, § DECEASED AND DONNA HOLBERT § § Plaintiffs § § and § § BIG B CRANE, LLC AND § INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE § COMPANY OF HANOVER S.E. § § Intervenors, § § vs. § 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT § CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; § CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES § GROUP, LLC; NGP CAPITAL § MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SERVA § CORPORATION § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS INTERVENOR BIG B CRANE, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, BIG B CRANE, LLC, an Intervenor, and files this its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant Cretic Energy Services, LLC (“Defendant”) and would respectfully show unto the Court the following: I. This lawsuit arises out of a failure of equipment and operations at an oil field lease in Reagan County that resulted in a fatality on January 11, 2018. Defendant Cretic Energy Services, LLC was contracted to provide coil tubing equipment and services at the site. On April 23, 2019, Intervenor’s counsel served Defendant with Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production. Intervenor gave the Defendant an extension to June 13, 2019, to respond to the written discovery. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses to those discovery requests are attached as Exhibit A. In the original petition in this action, Plaintiffs alleged that when the fatal accident occurred the Defendant was supervising the erection of the Defendant’s “Cretic Commander” extraction system. The original petition then alleged that a single-unit, hinge mounted blow-out preventer with lubricator portion of the of the Cretic Commander extraction system was being raised, when the blow-out preventer and lubricator portion of the extraction system fell and killed Rowdy Holbert. In its written discovery, the Intervenor defined the Cretic Commander as the extraction system to avoid arguments that the piece of equipment that fell included something more than blowout preventers and lubricators. In answering the written discovery, Defendant contended that the Cretic Commander could only refer to the hydraulic control unit manufactured by Serva Corporation, who has been nonsuited as a defendant in this action by the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor. Defendant asserted numerous objections to Intervenor’s discovery requests, provided incomplete responses to some requests, and refused to provide substantive responses to other requests. The evasive answers found predicate primarily on Defendant’s limiting the definition of “Cretic Commander” to the control unit manufactured by an unaffiliated company, Serva Corporation. Intervenor has requested that Defendant amend or supplement its responses to the written discovery requests, but Defendant has failed to comply with Intervenor’s requests. Intervenor’s written correspondence to Defendant regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses is attached as Exhibit B. II. According to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1 (b), a court may compel a party to respond adequately to requests for production and interrogatories. Defendant Cretic Energy Services did not respond adequately to Intervenors’ Request for Production and Interrogatories as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1. Therefore, the Court should compel Defendant Cretic Energy Services to comply with the rule. Defendant’s responses are inadequate for the following reasons: a. Defendant Cretic Energy Services did not verify their responses to interrogatories. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.2 (d) requires the interrogatories to by verified by Defendant Cretic Energy Services. b. Defendant Cretic Energy Services failed to respond to interrogatory numbers 3-6, 10, 12, 13, and 17-28. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1 requires the party to make a “complete response” to a discovery request. c. Defendant Cretic Energy Services failed to respond to Requests for Production numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-27, 30, 32-37, 44, 48, 49, 53 and 54. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1 requires the party to make a “complete response” to a discovery request. According to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.3 (a), a party must produce all the documents and things that are requested, discoverable, in its possession (actual or constructive), and not subject to an objection. d. Defendant Cretic Energy Services failed to respond to Request for Admission numbers 1-34. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198.2(b) requires the responding party to specifically admit or deny the request or explain in detail the reasons that the responding party cannot admit or deny the request. Furthermore, the responding party may qualify an answer, or deny a request in part, only when good faith requires. III. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1 (d) the Court may grant such relief as it deems just. IV. For the above reasons, Intervenor asks the Court to set this motion for hearing and, after the hearing, to compel Defendant Cretic Energy Services to supplement their discovery responses, to verify its answers to Intervenor’s interrogatories, and to provide its amended/supplemental responses within 10 days from the date of the Court’s order. Finally, Intervenor asks for such relief as the Court deems just under Rule 215, and for any other relief that it is entitled to. Respectfully submitted, BURT BARR & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. BY: /s/ M. Forest Nelson JOHN HOLMAN BARR SBN: 01798700 M. FOREST NELSON SBN: 14904625 MARY CHRISTIAN BARR SBN: 24082586 P.O. BOX 223667 DALLAS, TX 75222-3667 (214) 943-0012 TELEPHONE (214) 943-0048 FACSIMILE jbarr@bbarr.com fnelson@bbarr.com mcbarr@bbarr.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that I transmitted the attached meet and confer letter to Defendant Cretic Energy Services’ counsel of record on June 17, 2019, and never received any communication back from Cretic Energy Service’s counsel before this motion was filed. Intervenor’s counsel will work with Cretic Energy Services’ counsel to try and resolve the disputes set forth in this motion. This motion is submitted to the Court for consideration. /s/ M. Forest Nelson M. Forest Nelson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on 28th day of June, 2019, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was filed and served on all counsel of record by ECF filing pursuant to the TRCP. /s/ M Forest Nelson M. Forest Nelson EXHIBIT A NO. DC-18-05978 ASHLEY HOLBERT, Individually and as ) IN THE 101ST DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of K.H., a Minor and as ) Representative of the Estate of ROWDY LEE ) HOLBERT, Deceased, and DONNA ) HOLBERT, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) VS. ) IN AND FOR ) CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; ) CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, ) LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; ) and SERVA CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’s RESPONSES TO INTERVENOR BIG B CRANE, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Intervenor BIG B CRANE, by and through their attorneys of record, Mr. John Holman Barr, P. O. Box 223667, Dallas, Texas 75222-3667. Come now CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (incorrectly named in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition as NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC), three of the Defendants in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and responds to Intervenor BIG B CRANE, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories as follows: See attached. Respectfully submitted, PETERSON FARRIS BYRD & PARKER A Professional Corporation P. O. Box 9620 Amarillo, TX 79105-9620 (806) 374-5317; FAX: 372-2107 cparker@pf-lawfirm.com /s/ Chris D. Parker Chris D. Parker; SB#15479100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the above-named court, using the electronic case filing system of the court. Pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following attorneys of record were served electronically: Charles M. Noteboom Brian W. Butcher Noteboom Law Firm 669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100 Hurst, TX 76053 butcher@noteboom.com John Holman Barr Burt Barr & Associates, LLP P.O. Box 223667 Dallas, TX 75222-3667 jbarr@bbarr.com /s/ Chris D. Parker Chris D. Parker GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant objects to each and all of the interrogatories contained in Big B's First Set of Written Interrogatories to the extent that such written discovery is or purport to be subject to the "definitions" preceding such interrogatories, for the reason that such definitions, construed in conjunction with one another and in conjunction with the language of the interrogatories themselves, cause each and all of such interrogatories to be overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and oppressive. Furthermore, when construed in conjunction with such written interrogatories, such definitions and instructions cause such interrogatories to be of sufficient breadth to call for information which is privileged under the attorney-client privilege or which is protected from discovery under the attorney work product doctrine. This Defendant further objects to such definitions and instructions preceding Big B's First Set of Written Interrogatories for the reason that such definitions and instructions impose an undue burden upon Defendant to attempt to decipher the language of each written interrogatory in accordance with the language of the purported definitions and instructions, and for the reason that such definitions and instructions tend to impose upon Defendant certain burdens which are not imposed by law or by the rules of procedure governing this action. With respect to the foregoing objections, this Defendant states that Defendant wholly rejects Big B's attempt to redefine commonly used words, and state that they will interpret the interrogatories in accordance with the common understanding of the language used in the specific interrogatories without any regard or thought to the definitions as stated by Big B. Defendant further, and more specifically objects to the definition of the word "identify" for the reason that such definition purports to impose the responsibility for providing a broad array of information that does not necessarily include the "identity" of an individual or document, and the same is overly broad and burdensome. Defendant further objects to any instructions preceding any of the interrogatories as such instructions impose obligations and burdens outside the scope of permissible discovery and will not be followed. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state whether CRETIC, its agents, employees, independent contractors, attorneys or any other representatives ever received any oral or written notices, claims or complaints concerning injuries or property damage alleged to have occurred relating to the Cretic Commander, including its transport and assembly. The search for this information should include, but not be limited to, reports from district and other field representatives, computer files, field contract reports, claims, investigation reports, litigation request forms, customer assistance case records, preliminary investigation reports, service investigation reports, police reports, service reports and dealer or customer complaint letters. Please "identify" each such notice, claim, or complaint by "identifying" the person who has made such a claim, or has reported such an incident to "you"; the date of each incident giving rise to the claim or report; describing each incident, and stating the date "you" first became aware of the claim or incident. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify each lawsuit, arbitration or legal proceeding initiated against CRETIC that related to a Cretic Commander, including its transport and assembly. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify each person that worked on the design for the Cretic Commander, including the equipment used to transport and assemble the Cretic Commander, this includes CRETIC employees, officers, agents, representatives and independent contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the persons who worked on the design for the Commander. The Commander is a hydraulic control unit manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify each person that participated in the manufacture of the Cretic Commander - including the equipment used to transport and assemble the Cretic Commander at the job site - involved in the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the persons who worked on the design for the Commander. The Commander is a hydraulic control unit manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each person that participated in the development of warnings for the Cretic Commander - including the equipment used to transport and assemble the Cretic Commander at the job site - involved in the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the persons who worked on the design for the Commander. The Commander is a hydraulic control unit manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all tests and studies performed to determine whether the transportation and assembly of the Cretic Commander at a job site could be safely performed with the equipment and methodology used by CRETIC. Identify each test by the following: (a) type of test (by name or description); (b) the date of the test; and (c) the person, persons, or entity who performed the test. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not perform any tests or studies regarding the transportation and assembly of the Commander. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify your impeachment and rebuttal witnesses and evidence. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent it seeks to invade the attorney work product privileges regarding what witnesses may be called at trial. Moreover, rebuttal witnesses are witnesses whose testimony cannot be anticipated. Defendant further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent it is an effort to require Defendant to marshal all of its evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections: Ashley Holbert K.H., Minor Estate of Rowdy Lee Holbert Donna Holbert c/o Charles M. Noteboom Brian W. Butcher Noteboom The Law Firm 669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100 Hurst, Texas 76053 (817) 282-9700 (817) 282-8073 – fax Plaintiffs Cretic Energy Services, LLC Catapult Energy Services Group, LLC NGP Energy Capital Management, LLC John Bear – District Manager for Cretic Energy Services c/o Chris D. Parker Peterson Farris Byrd & Parker A Professional Corporation P.O. Box 9620 Amarillo, Texas 79105-9620 (806) 374-5317 8(06) 372-2107—fax Defendants Big B. Crane, LLC International Insurance Company of Hanover S.E Jack Coleman – Crane Safety Coordinator c/o John Holman Barr Mary Christian Barr Burt Barr & Associates, LLP P.O. Box 223667 Dallas, Texas 75222-3667 (214) 943-0012 (214) 943-0048 – fax Intervenors SERVA CORPORATION c/o John W. McChristian, Jr. Sunny L. Smith Ray, McChristian & Jeans, P.C. 101 Summit Avenue, Suite 705 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 335-7201 (817) 335-7335 facsimile Defendant South Plains Forensic Pathology, P.A. P.O. Box 64813 Lubbock, Texas 79464-4813 and 202 Avenue Q Lubbock, Texas 79415 (806) 790-9611 Performed Autopsy Clayton Kay Vaughn Funeral Home 505 E. Main Street Itasca, Texas 76055 (254) 687-2371 Reagan County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Sanders Deputy Bree Darnell Captain Jason McGhee Sheriff Garner 320 N. Plaza Big Lake, TX 76932 (325) 884-2424 Performed accident investigation Reagan Memorial Hospital Dr. Koenig and its agents and custodian of records 1300 N. Main Ave. Big Lake, TX 76932 (325) 884-2561 Deceased’s medical provider Reagan County EMS John Longoria, EMT Tach Martin, EMT and its agents and custodians of record 207 N. Plaza Big Lake, TX 76932 (325) 884-3650 Deceased’s medical provider Justice of the Peace Patty Creech 300 N. Plaza Ave. Big Lake, TX 76932 (325) 884-3482 Ordered autopsy Hill County Sheriff’s Office 406 Hall St. Hillsboro, TX 76645 (254) 582-5313 Performed death notification John Mackenzie Morrison 2824 Northtown Place Midland, TX 79705 (702) 241-6017 Witness Anthony John Griese 185 E. 3rd St. Sebastian, TX 78594 (325) 939-9883 Witness Jack Davis Coleman 6816 Fryer St. The Colony, TX 75056 (469) 644-8351 Witness Ricardo Estrada, Jr. 7234 W. Military Rd. Mission, TX 78572 (956) 252-7404 Witness Carlos Avalos 417 Grambling Ct. El Paso, TX 79907 (915) 525-5159 Witness Dexter Deon Williams 5985 Hwy. 79 N. Deberry, TX 75633 (903) 690-4925 Witness Monty Austin Horton 223 CR 3802 Hawkins, TX 75765 (903) 780-0860 Witness Josef Michael Aragon 1506 Grayson Dr. Longview, TX 75604 (903) 736-4813 Witness Milton A. Light 104 Davis Parkin, AR 72373 (432) 250-9228 Witness INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please state the existence, description, nature, custody, and location of documents that are relevant or will lead to relevant evidence regarding the captioned action. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is overly broad and fails to identify, with reasonable particularity, the description of the documents sought. Moreover, Interrogatory No. 8 seeks to invade the attorney work product privilege in that it requires defense counsel to determine what documents may or may not be relevant. Subject to the foregoing objections, Big B is referred to the documents previously produced. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify all experts used for consultation and who are not expected to be called as a witness at trial, whose work product forms the basis, either in whole or in part, of the mental impressions and opinions of an expert who may be called as a witness, or whose opinions or impressions have been reviewed by an expert who may be called to testify. With regard to each consulting expert identified, specifically identify the following: a. The name, telephone number, address, occupation and field of specialization and qualifications of such witness to testify as an expert; and b. The subject matter of such witness's mental impressions and opinions; and the facts known to the expert which relate to or form the basis of the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert. ANSWER: Defendant has not retained any consulting experts at the present time. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all warnings and instructions you contend were supplied to Big B or Rowdy Lee Holbert, before the incident that forms the basis of lawsuit, regarding the risk or danger related to the transport and assembly of the Cretic Commander at a jobsite. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any warnings or instructions provided to Big B or Mr. Holbert regarding the Commander hydraulic control unit. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify each person answering these interrogatories as well as the interrogatories answered by each person. ANSWER: Chris D. Parker Peterson Farris Byrd & Parker P.O. Box 9620 Amarillo, TX 79105 Lonnie Stoute Asset Manager Cretic Energy Services 11003 West CR 72 Midland, TX 79707 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify every design for the Cretic Commander as well as its transport and assembly that was considered by you, before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not consider any designs for the Commander hydraulic control unit. Rather, the Commander hydraulic control unit was manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify every manufacturing process/methodology that was considered by you for the Cretic Commander as well as its transport and assembly, before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not consider any manufacturing process/methodology for the Commander hydraulic control unit. Rather, the Commander hydraulic control unit was manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do “you” claim that Rowdy Lee Holbert was negligent or at fault in a way which was a proximate cause of the injuries or damages made the basis of this lawsuit? If so, describe the act and effect of each such act of negligence or wrongful conduct alleged. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 14 to the extent it seeks to require Defendant to marshal its evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, it appears Mr. Holbert was negligent in several respects including, but not limited to, the following: 1) Failure to rig up the load; 2) Negligently instructing Cretic employees to tape the safety latch on the hook shut; 3) Failure to control the load; 4) Placement of the crane. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do “you” claim that any other person or entity (whether a party to this lawsuit or not) was negligent or at fault in a way which was a proximate cause of the injuries or damages made the basis of this suit? If so, “identify” each such person or entity and describe the act and effect of each such act of negligence or wrongful conduct alleged. ANSWER: Bib B failed to properly train and supervise Mr. Holbert. In addition, Big B furnished Mr. Holbert with defective and unsafe equipment. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please fully describe your contentions as to how the incident made the basis of this lawsuit occurred. ANSWER: It appears the cable being used to lift the load came out of the hook provided by Big B to Mr. Holbert thereby allowing the load to fall toward the cab of the crane. Big B is further referred to Defendant’s response to Interrogatory No. 14. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify witnesses most knowledgeable with the Cretic Commander and its transport and assembly, including the existence, location, and custodian of documents or physical evidence pertaining to: a. The manufacture of the Cretic Commander. b. The transport of the Cretic Commander, including how to secure the Cretic Commander for transport to a job site. c. The design of the Cretic Commander. d. The development of warnings for the Cretic Commander, including its transport and assembly. e. Identify the custodian of filmed tests of the Cretic Commander, including its transport and assembly. f. Identify the custodian at CRETIC of alternative designs, tests and drawings of the Cretic Commander and its transport and assembly. h. Identify the person or persons responsible for the quality control of the Cretic Commander’s manufacture, transport, and assembly. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, a. Serva b. Lonnie Stoute Asset Manager Cretic Energy Services 11003 West CR 72 Midland, TX 79707 John Bear Cretic Energy Services 11003 West CR 72 Midland, TX 79707 Cretic Energy Services District Manager Christie Orson Cretic Energy Services 11003 West CR 72 Midland, TX 79707 Field Safety / DOT Representative Dexter Williams 5985 Hwy 79 N Deberry, TX 75633 Cretic supervisor Josef Michael Aragon 1506 Grayson Dr. Longview, TX 75604 Cretic operator Dexter Lakeith Hines 6201 FM 248 Marion, TX 75564 Cretic N2 operator Monte Austin Horton 223 CR 3802 Hawkins, TX 75765 Cretic ground hand Rickey Darnell Cretic ground hand Milton A. Light 104 Davis Parkin, AR 72373 Cretic pump operator c. Serva d. Serva e. Unknown f. None h. Serva INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify the composition of the materials that secured the Cretic Commander for the transport to the job site where the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit occurred. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit is a trailer that contains the control unit and is transported to the job site by a tractor. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: What method, if any, was used to assure that the Cretic Commander could be safely removed from its transport carrier and assembled at the job site. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 19 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit was not removed from its carrier, nor was it assembled at the job site. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, did CRETIC or any of its affiliates, joint venturers, parent, subsidiaries, divisions or contractors perform any testing to determine the integrity, safe transport, and safe assembly of the Cretic Commander to a job site? If so, please describe the tests including films, tapes, photos, notes, results and documents related to such tests. If no tests were performed, state the reason(s), if any, why such tests were not performed. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, was CRETIC aware that the process and methodology for transporting and assembling the Cretic Commander at a job site presented a foreseeable risk of bodily injury or property damage. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, none. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Did CRETIC or any of its subsidiaries, divisions or contractors conduct studies relating to the transport and assembly of the Cretic Commander at a job site? If so, provide the results of such studies. If not, state the reason(s) why, if any, such studies were not performed. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, did CRETIC or any of its affiliates, joint venturers, parent, subsidiaries, divisions or contractors perform any testing to determine the integrity, safe transport, and safe assembly of the Cretic Commander to a job site? If so, please describe the tests including films, tapes, photos, notes, results and documents related to such tests. If no tests were performed, state the reason(s), if any, why such tests were not performed. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: During December 2017 and January 2018, what quality assurance tests, if any, were performed by any of the defendants, regarding the transport and assembly of the Cretic Commander involved in incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not aware of any such tests. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do you contend that any other entity or person was the manufacturer of the Cretic Commander and the method for securing the Cretic Commander for transport and ultimately assembly? If so, state the name of the entity or person and its relationship to CRETIC. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit was manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Has CRETIC ever considered changing the design of the Cretic Commander, the methodology for transporting the Cretic Commander, or the methodology for assembling the Cretic Commander? If "yes" describe the alternate design or methodology, including when such alternatives were considered, identify who suggested the alternatives, why the alternatives were considered, and why the alternatives were not used. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 26 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, no. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Do you contend that any other entity or person was the manufacturer of the Cretic Commander or developer of the method for securing the Cretic Commander for transport and ultimately assembly? If so, state the name of the entity or person and its relationship to CRETIC. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 27 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, the Commander hydraulic control unit was manufactured by Serva. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Does CRETIC have any internal memoranda, meeting minutes, notes, reports, data, correspondence or other documents relating to the design of the Cretic Commander and the methodology for transporting and assembling the Cretic Commander? If so, identify those documents with sufficient clarity so that a request for production might be served, or produce copies of such documents. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 28 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, none. NO. DC-18-05978 ASHLEY HOLBERT, Individually and as ) IN THE 101ST DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of K.H., a Minor and as ) Representative of the Estate of ROWDY LEE ) HOLBERT, Deceased, and DONNA ) HOLBERT, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) VS. ) IN AND FOR ) CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; ) CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, ) LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; ) and SERVA CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’s RESPONSES TO BIG B CRANE, LLC’s FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Intervenor BIG B CRANE, by and through their attorneys of record, Mr. John Holman Barr, P. O. Box 223667, Dallas, Texas 75222-3667. Come now CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (incorrectly named in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition as NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC), three of the Defendants in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and responds to Big B Crane, LLC’s First Request for Production as follows: See attached. Respectfully submitted, PETERSON FARRIS BYRD & PARKER A Professional Corporation P. O. Box 9620 Amarillo, TX 79105-9620 (806) 374-5317; FAX: 372-2107 cparker@pf-lawfirm.com /s/ Chris D. Parker Chris D. Parker; SB#15479100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the above-named court, using the electronic case filing system of the court. Pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following attorneys of record were served electronically: Charles M. Noteboom Brian W. Butcher Noteboom Law Firm 669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100 Hurst, TX 76053 butcher@noteboom.com John Holman Barr Burt Barr & Associates, LLP P.O. Box 223667 Dallas, TX 75222-3667 jbarr@bbarr.com /s/ Chris D. Parker Chris D. Parker GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant objects to each and all of the requests contained in Big B’s Request for Production to the extent that such written discovery is or purports to be subject to the "definitions" preceding such requests, for the reason that such definitions, construed in conjunction with one another and in conjunction with the language of the requests themselves, cause each and all of such requests to be overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and oppressive. Furthermore, when construed in conjunction with such written requests, such definitions and instructions cause such requests to be of sufficient breadth to call for information which is privileged under the attorney- client privilege or which is protected from discovery under the attorney work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to such definitions and instructions preceding Big B’s Request for Production for the reason that such definitions and instructions impose an undue burden upon Defendant to attempt to decipher the language of each written request in accordance with the language of the purported definitions and instructions, and for the reason that such definitions and instructions tend to impose upon Defendant certain burdens which are not imposed by law or by the rules of procedure governing this action. With respect to the foregoing objections, Defendant states that they wholly reject Big B’s attempt to redefine commonly used words, and state that they will interpret the requests in accordance with the common understanding of the language used in the specific requests without any regard or thought to the definitions as stated by Big B. Defendant further, and more specifically, objects to the definition of the word "identify" for the reason that such definition purports to impose the responsibility for providing a broad array of information that does not necessarily include the "identity" of an individual or document, and the same is overly broad and burdensome. Defendant further objects to any instructions preceding any of the requests as such instructions impose obligations and burdens outside the scope of permissible discovery and will not be followed. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: Produce all documents relating to the purchase orders, contracts, certificates of title, receipts, bills of sale, agreements, titles, warranty, repair, service, and maintenance history of the Cretic Commander. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 1 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Commander Hydraulic Control Unit did not have anything to do with the accident in question. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2: Produce all photographs, video tapes, drawings, diagrams, measurements, reports, statements, communications, records, and documents which are relevant to the incident scene, the Cretic Commander involved in the incident made the basis of this lawsuit and vehicle used to transport the Cretic Commander to the incident scene. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 2 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Big B is referred to those documents previously produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Produce any recordings of any 911 phone call(s) relating to the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendant is not in possession of such calls at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: Produce all documents reflecting or relating to notice of recalls, notice of service, technical bulletins, consumer notifications, or other type of notice you sent regarding necessary repairs, maintenance, and service applicable to the Cretic Commander, its components, and its mode of transportation to a job site. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 4 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant did not send any such notices. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: Produce all petitions, complaints, consumer complaints, product complaint reports or other documents relating to claims or comments received by or made known to CRETIC alleging defects in or failures of the Cretic Commander, its components, the mode of its transportation to a job site, or the methodology for its assembly. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 5 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, none. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: Produce documents you relied upon to answer the Big B’s interrogatories to you. RESPONSE: Big B is referred to those documents previously produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: Produce all documents, including but not limited to all engineering drawings, relating to the design, manufacture, assembly, testing, and evaluation of the Cretic Commander as well as its transport and assembly. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 7 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant is not in possession of any engineering drawings for the Commander Hydraulic Control Unit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: Produce all repair manuals, service manuals, and technical service bulletins relating to the Cretic Commander and its transport to and assembly at the job site. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 8 on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, none. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: Produce all documents, statements, reports, communications, tests, and materials that relate to how the subject accident and decedent's injuries occurred, including but not limited to the events and circumstances leading up to and surrounding the incident; when you first become aware of the subject accident; how the incident occurred, and each fact that demonstrates plaintiff's decedent may have contributed or caused the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 9 on the grounds that it is overly broad and fails to identify, with reasonable particularity, the documents sought. Subject to the foregoing objections, Big B is referred to the documents previously produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: Produce all documents, statements, reports, records, communications, tests, and other materials that relate to the consideration of or use of any alternative design relating to Cretic Commander or alternative methodology