On September 04, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Big River Nv Llc,
Petryliene, Renata,
and
Bennett Weston Lajone & Turner Pc,
Cheyenne Asset Management Inc,
Corna, Louis J,
Fogg, Kenneth K,
Icc Surfwood Corp,
Landess, Craig,
Longfellow Investors Iii Llc,
Longfellow Investors Ii Llc,
Longfellow Investors I Llc,
Longfellow Investors Iv Llc,
Longfellow Investors V Llc,
Phillips, Donald W.,
Phillips, Mickey Ned,
Phillips, Nickey Ted,
for OTHER (CIVIL)
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
3/22/2022 2:28 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Brandon Keys DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC—20- 125 34
RENATA PETRYLIENE and BIG RIVER
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
NV LLC
Plaintiff, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
V.
BRADFORD PHILLIPS INDIVIDUALLY,
ICC SURFWOOD CORP, CHEYENNE
ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., DONALD
W. PHILLIPS, MICKEY NED PHILLIPS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
NICKEY TED PHILLIPS, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS I, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS II, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS III, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS IV, LLC, LONGFELLOW
INVESTORS V, LLC, LOUIS, J. CORNA,
KENNETH K. FOGG, AND BENNETT, 191“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WESTON, LAJONE & TURNER, P.C.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CHEYENNE ASSET MANAGEMENT,
INC.’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs Renata Petryliene and Big River NV LLC file this Response to Defendant
Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion”). For
efficiency, this Response follows the same structure as the Motion.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny Defendants’ motion in its entirety. Contrary to the claims
made by Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc., Plaintiffs complied with the Court’s orders
and supplemented all discovery responses which they were ordered to supplement within 3O days.
Additionally, Plaintiffs sought additional records, and undertook the process of redacting the bank
records already in their possession. Further, Plaintiffs have supplemented the responses to address
Defendant’s concerns. The only issue remaining to resolve this dispute is entry of a protective
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 1 of 4
order. The parties are in discussions on a protective order. If the parties cannot reach agreement
on a protective order, Plaintiffs will file a motion for protective order.
I. Plaintiffs Are Prepared to Produce Bank Records In Their Possession Under
an Appropriate Court Order.
Defendants ask the Court to compel production of bank records. This issue will be moot
as soon as the parties can agree to a protective order, or the Court enters one if the parties cannot
agree to a protective order. Defendants have over 700 pages of bank records prepared for
production and will produce these documents after entry of an appropriate protective order.
II. Plaintiffs’ Objection to Interrogatories Should Be Sustained.
Defendant asks the Court to overrule Plaintiffs’ objections to two interrogatories Without
providing any basis for overruling the objections. Simply put, Defendant has exceeded the
allowable number of interrogatories. That is the only objection asserted by Plaintiffs and
appropriately invokes the 25 interrogatory limit under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3(b)(3).
III. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Should Be Denied.
Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management asks the Court to sanction Plaintiffs inter alia
because “Plaintiffs have not conferred with Defendants’ counsel.” In fact, Defendant has not
conferred With Plaintiffs. Defendant sent a single letter to Plaintiff’s counsel that did not provide
any context for how Defendant believed the Plaintiffs had failed to respond to the Court’s orders
or to the new discovery served by Defendant. The only time that Defendant’s counsel called
Plaintiff s counsel was in response to a call from Plaintiffs counsel regarding a separate issue in
the case. Since that time, Plaintiff’s counsel began seeking agreement from all counsel on a
protective order. Discussions on that issue remain ongoing. At this time, the only reason Plaintiffs
have not produced the bank statements is because the parties have not yet agreed to, and the Court
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 2 of 4
has not entered a protective order in this case. Accordingly, the request for sanctions should be
denied.
Similarly, Defendant seeks sanctions because “Plaintiffs have chosen to do nothing.” This
is entirely inaccurate. Plaintiffs supplemented their discovery responses Within 30 days of the
hearing as ordered by the Court. Likewise, Plaintiffs have attempted to locate additional records
from Plaintiffs’ phone providers Without success.
In summary, if Defendant had conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, these issues would likely
have been resolved without the need for a motion.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to:
o Deny Defendant’s Motion for production of bank records as moot as soon as a
protective order is entered;
o Sustain Plaintiffs’ objections to excessive interrogatories;
o Deny Defendant’s request for sanctions; and
o Grant such further relief to which Plaintiffs show themselves entitled.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 3 of 4
Dated: March 22, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,
/S/ R. Ritch Roberts, III
R. Ritch Roberts, III
Texas Bar No. 24041794
roberts@rrobertslaw.com
The Law Offices of R. Ritch Roberts PLLC
Ross Tower
500 Akard Street, Suite 2150
Dallas, TX 75201
214.237.0900 telephone
214.237.0901 facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR RENATA PETRYLIENE
AND BIG RIVER NV LLC
QERTIFIQATE QF SERVIQE
I certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been forwarded pursuant to the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure on March 22, 2022, to all counsel of record Via eFile.
/s/ R. Ritch Roberts, III
R. Ritch Roberts, III
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 4 of 4
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Bradley Ryynanen on behalf of Bradley Ryynanen
Bar No. 24082520
brad@bdrlegal.com
Envelope ID: 62838227
Status as of 3/23/2022 9:35 AM CST
Associated Case Party: RENATA PETRYLIENE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Ralph Ritch Roberts 24041794 roberts@rrobertslaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Bradley Ryynanen 24082520 brad@bdrlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: ICC SURFWOOD CORP
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jeffrey MTillotson jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Jonathan RPatton jpatton@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: CHEYENNE ASSET MANAGEMENT INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
H. Grady Chandler grady@hgchandlerlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: KENNETHKFOGG
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Daniel D.Tostrud dtostrud@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Virginia E.Cox vcox@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Karyn Elder kelder@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Sandi Mallon smallon@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Bradley Ryynanen on behalf of Bradley Ryynanen
Bar No. 24082520
brad@bdrlegal.com
Envelope ID: 62838227
Status as of 3/23/2022 9:35 AM CST
Case Contacts
Mitchell Madden mmadden@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Shawnte Kinney skinney@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Tania Flores tflores@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Dennis Holmgren Dennis@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Melissa Johnson Melissa@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Jordan L. Vimont jvimont@rctlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Joseph Alrrobali airrobali@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Susie Wade swade@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Veronica Zavala veronica@hgchandlerlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Rachel A.Buchhorn rbuchhorn@reidcollins.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Lisa tsai ltsai@reidcollins.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Misty Gasiorowski mgasiorowski@wkpz.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Ashli Durke adurke@rctlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Kira Lytle klytle@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Enrique Ramirez eramirez@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Benjamin LNabors bnabors@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 3/22/2022 2:28 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Brandon Keys DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC—20- 125 34 RENATA PETRYLIENE and BIG RIVER §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ NV LLC Plaintiff, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. BRADFORD PHILLIPS INDIVIDUALLY, ICC SURFWOOD CORP, CHEYENNE ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., DONALD W. PHILLIPS, MICKEY NED PHILLIPS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NICKEY TED PHILLIPS, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS I, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS II, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS III, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS IV, LLC, LONGFELLOW INVESTORS V, LLC, LOUIS, J. CORNA, KENNETH K. FOGG, AND BENNETT, 191“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT WESTON, LAJONE & TURNER, P.C. Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CHEYENNE ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Plaintiffs Renata Petryliene and Big River NV LLC file this Response to Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion”). For efficiency, this Response follows the same structure as the Motion. Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny Defendants’ motion in its entirety. Contrary to the claims made by Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management, Inc., Plaintiffs complied with the Court’s orders and supplemented all discovery responses which they were ordered to supplement within 3O days. Additionally, Plaintiffs sought additional records, and undertook the process of redacting the bank records already in their possession. Further, Plaintiffs have supplemented the responses to address Defendant’s concerns. The only issue remaining to resolve this dispute is entry of a protective Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 1 of 4 order. The parties are in discussions on a protective order. If the parties cannot reach agreement on a protective order, Plaintiffs will file a motion for protective order. I. Plaintiffs Are Prepared to Produce Bank Records In Their Possession Under an Appropriate Court Order. Defendants ask the Court to compel production of bank records. This issue will be moot as soon as the parties can agree to a protective order, or the Court enters one if the parties cannot agree to a protective order. Defendants have over 700 pages of bank records prepared for production and will produce these documents after entry of an appropriate protective order. II. Plaintiffs’ Objection to Interrogatories Should Be Sustained. Defendant asks the Court to overrule Plaintiffs’ objections to two interrogatories Without providing any basis for overruling the objections. Simply put, Defendant has exceeded the allowable number of interrogatories. That is the only objection asserted by Plaintiffs and appropriately invokes the 25 interrogatory limit under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3(b)(3). III. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Should Be Denied. Defendant Cheyenne Asset Management asks the Court to sanction Plaintiffs inter alia because “Plaintiffs have not conferred with Defendants’ counsel.” In fact, Defendant has not conferred With Plaintiffs. Defendant sent a single letter to Plaintiff’s counsel that did not provide any context for how Defendant believed the Plaintiffs had failed to respond to the Court’s orders or to the new discovery served by Defendant. The only time that Defendant’s counsel called Plaintiff s counsel was in response to a call from Plaintiffs counsel regarding a separate issue in the case. Since that time, Plaintiff’s counsel began seeking agreement from all counsel on a protective order. Discussions on that issue remain ongoing. At this time, the only reason Plaintiffs have not produced the bank statements is because the parties have not yet agreed to, and the Court Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 2 of 4 has not entered a protective order in this case. Accordingly, the request for sanctions should be denied. Similarly, Defendant seeks sanctions because “Plaintiffs have chosen to do nothing.” This is entirely inaccurate. Plaintiffs supplemented their discovery responses Within 30 days of the hearing as ordered by the Court. Likewise, Plaintiffs have attempted to locate additional records from Plaintiffs’ phone providers Without success. In summary, if Defendant had conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, these issues would likely have been resolved without the need for a motion. IV. Conclusion Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to: o Deny Defendant’s Motion for production of bank records as moot as soon as a protective order is entered; o Sustain Plaintiffs’ objections to excessive interrogatories; o Deny Defendant’s request for sanctions; and o Grant such further relief to which Plaintiffs show themselves entitled. Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 3 of 4 Dated: March 22, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, /S/ R. Ritch Roberts, III R. Ritch Roberts, III Texas Bar No. 24041794 roberts@rrobertslaw.com The Law Offices of R. Ritch Roberts PLLC Ross Tower 500 Akard Street, Suite 2150 Dallas, TX 75201 214.237.0900 telephone 214.237.0901 facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR RENATA PETRYLIENE AND BIG RIVER NV LLC QERTIFIQATE QF SERVIQE I certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been forwarded pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on March 22, 2022, to all counsel of record Via eFile. /s/ R. Ritch Roberts, III R. Ritch Roberts, III Plaintiffs’ Response to Motions to Compel Page 4 of 4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Bradley Ryynanen on behalf of Bradley Ryynanen Bar No. 24082520 brad@bdrlegal.com Envelope ID: 62838227 Status as of 3/23/2022 9:35 AM CST Associated Case Party: RENATA PETRYLIENE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Ralph Ritch Roberts 24041794 roberts@rrobertslaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Bradley Ryynanen 24082520 brad@bdrlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Associated Case Party: ICC SURFWOOD CORP Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jeffrey MTillotson jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Jonathan RPatton jpatton@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Associated Case Party: CHEYENNE ASSET MANAGEMENT INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status H. Grady Chandler grady@hgchandlerlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Associated Case Party: KENNETHKFOGG Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Daniel D.Tostrud dtostrud@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Virginia E.Cox vcox@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Karyn Elder kelder@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Sandi Mallon smallon@cobbmartinez.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Case Contacts Name Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Bradley Ryynanen on behalf of Bradley Ryynanen Bar No. 24082520 brad@bdrlegal.com Envelope ID: 62838227 Status as of 3/23/2022 9:35 AM CST Case Contacts Mitchell Madden mmadden@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Shawnte Kinney skinney@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Tania Flores tflores@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Dennis Holmgren Dennis@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Melissa Johnson Melissa@hjmmlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Jordan L. Vimont jvimont@rctlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Joseph Alrrobali airrobali@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Susie Wade swade@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Veronica Zavala veronica@hgchandlerlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Rachel A.Buchhorn rbuchhorn@reidcollins.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Lisa tsai ltsai@reidcollins.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Misty Gasiorowski mgasiorowski@wkpz.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Ashli Durke adurke@rctlegal.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Kira Lytle klytle@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Enrique Ramirez eramirez@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT Benjamin LNabors bnabors@tillotsonlaw.com 3/22/2022 2:28:47 PM SENT