On June 30, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sous, Hussein,
and
Boston, Kent,
Woods, William,
for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
6/21/2023 6:26 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Martin Reyes DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-07374
HUSSEIN SOUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintlffi §
§
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
KENT BOSTON §
Defendant. § 193m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF ’S RELPY TO DEFENDAN T’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF
DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIANT, KEITH AUSTIN LEPAK. M.D.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Hussein Sous (hereinafter “P1aintifi”), in the above entitled and
captioned matter, and files this Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintifi’s Motion to Compel
Deposition Testimony of Defendant’s Counter-Affiant, Keith Austin Lepak, M.D.
I.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
A. Dr. Lepak is an Expert That Falls Under TRCP 195.303)
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 18.001(f) requires the counter affidavit be
signed by an expert in the relevant field. Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.3(b) states that “an expert retained by,
employed by, or otherwise in control of the party” must be made available for deposition.
In the instant matter, Defendant injected Dr. Lepak into this case by paying them a fee to
render an opinion through a counter affidavit. Dr. Lepak as the counter afiiant is held out as an
expert and since he has been paid by the Defendant he would be considered “retained by, employed
by, or otherwise in control of” the Defendant under TRCP 195.3 (b).
B. Plaintiff Would Like t0 Flush Out Inconsistencies in Dr. Lepak Counter Affidavit
There are several inconsistencies contained in the counter affidavit produced by Dr. Lepak.
While pointing out the difference between items “billed” and items “paid” he goes on to state that
the “amount charged” is the thing that he is saying is unreasonable, but he also seems to align
“charged” With what should be paid. This begs the question “does the ‘amount charged’ stand in
for the ‘amount accepted’”? Are charged amounts and/or amounts accepted different than
“amounts billed”? For these reasons it is both reasonable and necessary to depose Dr. Lepak.
C. Defendant Should Pay The Fees For Their Own Retained Expert
In discussing any fees pertaining to this point of contention, it is worth celebrating that the
Plaintiff is not the party that injected Dr. Lepak into this case. Defendant hired Dr. Lepak to
Controvert Plaintiff’s Medical Billing and put his affidavit at issue. Defendant should be the one
to pay the fees required for Dr. Lepak to be presented for deposition.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel the Deposition of Dr. Lepak be granted, and for such further and other relief to
which he may be entitled at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
DASPIT LAW FIRM, PLLC
/s/ Jessica Bebawi
Jessica Bebawi
State Bar No. 24108867
1200 Summit Ave STE 504
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Tel: (469) 206-8210
Fax: (713) 587-9086
Email: e-service@daspitlaw.com
bebawi das itlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
provided to all counsel of record in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21 a, on this
Wednesday, June 21, 2023.
ViiEmail: whatlevvfax@wbclawfirm.c0m
Ashley G. Whatley
WALTERS, BALIDO & CRAIN, LLP
10440 North Central Expressway, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75231
T: (214) 749-4805
F: (214)760-7670
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
KENT BOSTON
/S/ Jessica Bebawi
Jessica Bebawi
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.
Patricia Pieratt on behalf of John Daspit
Bar No. 24048906
ppieratt@daspitlaw.com
Envelope ID: 76846653
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: TO DEFENDANT‘S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL
Status as of 6/21/2023 8:24 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
DLF Intake intake@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Alma Lira Alira@proactivelegal.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Jaime Holder jholder@proactivelegal.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
John Daspit e-service@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Jessica Bebawi bebawi@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: KENT BOSTON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Ashley G.Whatley whatleyvfax@wbclawfirm.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Fernanda Ranero fernanda.ranero@wbclawfirm.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: HUSSEIN SOUS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Taylor McElmoyl tmcelmoyl@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT
Document Filed Date
June 21, 2023
Case Filing Date
June 30, 2022
Category
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED 6/21/2023 6:26 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Martin Reyes DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-07374 HUSSEIN SOUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintlffi § § V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § KENT BOSTON § Defendant. § 193m JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ’S RELPY TO DEFENDAN T’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIANT, KEITH AUSTIN LEPAK. M.D. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff Hussein Sous (hereinafter “P1aintifi”), in the above entitled and captioned matter, and files this Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintifi’s Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Defendant’s Counter-Affiant, Keith Austin Lepak, M.D. I. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE A. Dr. Lepak is an Expert That Falls Under TRCP 195.303) Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 18.001(f) requires the counter affidavit be signed by an expert in the relevant field. Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.3(b) states that “an expert retained by, employed by, or otherwise in control of the party” must be made available for deposition. In the instant matter, Defendant injected Dr. Lepak into this case by paying them a fee to render an opinion through a counter affidavit. Dr. Lepak as the counter afiiant is held out as an expert and since he has been paid by the Defendant he would be considered “retained by, employed by, or otherwise in control of” the Defendant under TRCP 195.3 (b). B. Plaintiff Would Like t0 Flush Out Inconsistencies in Dr. Lepak Counter Affidavit There are several inconsistencies contained in the counter affidavit produced by Dr. Lepak. While pointing out the difference between items “billed” and items “paid” he goes on to state that the “amount charged” is the thing that he is saying is unreasonable, but he also seems to align “charged” With what should be paid. This begs the question “does the ‘amount charged’ stand in for the ‘amount accepted’”? Are charged amounts and/or amounts accepted different than “amounts billed”? For these reasons it is both reasonable and necessary to depose Dr. Lepak. C. Defendant Should Pay The Fees For Their Own Retained Expert In discussing any fees pertaining to this point of contention, it is worth celebrating that the Plaintiff is not the party that injected Dr. Lepak into this case. Defendant hired Dr. Lepak to Controvert Plaintiff’s Medical Billing and put his affidavit at issue. Defendant should be the one to pay the fees required for Dr. Lepak to be presented for deposition. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Dr. Lepak be granted, and for such further and other relief to which he may be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, DASPIT LAW FIRM, PLLC /s/ Jessica Bebawi Jessica Bebawi State Bar No. 24108867 1200 Summit Ave STE 504 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel: (469) 206-8210 Fax: (713) 587-9086 Email: e-service@daspitlaw.com bebawi das itlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been provided to all counsel of record in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21 a, on this Wednesday, June 21, 2023. ViiEmail: whatlevvfax@wbclawfirm.c0m Ashley G. Whatley WALTERS, BALIDO & CRAIN, LLP 10440 North Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75231 T: (214) 749-4805 F: (214)760-7670 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT KENT BOSTON /S/ Jessica Bebawi Jessica Bebawi 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. Patricia Pieratt on behalf of John Daspit Bar No. 24048906 ppieratt@daspitlaw.com Envelope ID: 76846653 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: TO DEFENDANT‘S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Status as of 6/21/2023 8:24 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status DLF Intake intake@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT Alma Lira Alira@proactivelegal.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT Jaime Holder jholder@proactivelegal.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT John Daspit e-service@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT Jessica Bebawi bebawi@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT Associated Case Party: KENT BOSTON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Ashley G.Whatley whatleyvfax@wbclawfirm.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT Fernanda Ranero fernanda.ranero@wbclawfirm.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT Associated Case Party: HUSSEIN SOUS Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Taylor McElmoyl tmcelmoyl@daspitlaw.com 6/21/2023 6:26:49 PM SENT