Preview
Filed: 1/7/2021 10:01 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 49512736
By: Shailja Dixit
1/8/2021 8:51 AM
CAUSE NO. 19-CV-1003
A*MED MANAGEMENT, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff §
§
v. §
§
EUTIVA THOMAS, § 56TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THE PROVIDENCE HOME HEALTH §
SERVICES, INC., and THE §
PROVIDENCE HOSPICE, INC. §
Defendants § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO STRIKE A*MED SERVICES, INC’S
OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL RESPONSE FOR SANCTIONS
Defendant/Movant asks the court to strike objections, compel responses and for
sanction against A*MED SERVICES, INC’S responses to INTERROGATORIES,
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION and REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. In support
thereof the Defendant would show the following:
A. Introduction & Facts
The case is set for trial Feb 16, 2021.
Until approximately September 30, 2020 when A*Med Services, Inc. was added
as a party [Second Amended Petition]
Argument & Authorities
The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so disputes may be decided by what
the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d
550, 555 (Tex. 1990). The discovery responses which were full of objections and
nonresponsive answers are impeding the very purpose of discovery. The purpose of
sanctions is to secure compliance with the rules, to deter future violation of the rules, and
to punish parties that violate the rules. Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849
(Tex. 1992).
Movant asks the court to impose sanctions of attorney’s fees to bring these
objections before the Court for a ruling.
Movant has spent 3 hours preparing the very specific challenge to the “responses”
and has spent an additional 2 hours traveling to and participating in the hearing on this
motion.
1
The reasonable hourly fee for the attorney handling this matter is $300.00 an hour
based upon more than 30 years of practicing law. Movant seeks an award of $1,500 for
attorney’s fees.
B. Specific Objections To Be Stricken And Complete
Answers And Responses Compelled
A copy of the response to the interrogatories and requests for production are
attached hereto as an exhibit.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION:
As evidence of the discovery abuse of the Plaintiff A*Med Services, Inc. objected to
each and every single Request for Production In addition to the abuse of objections the
Plaintiff refused to comply with the requirements of Rule 196.3(c) which requires the
following;
“The responding party must either produce documents and tangible things as they are
kept in the usual course of business or organize and label them to correspond with the
categories in the request.”
Plaintiff A*Med Services, Inc has responded to a portion of the responses by
referencing previously produced documents. Movant is required to determine what
documents are responsible and is then, based upon the abuses of discovery, unable to
determine what documents, if any, have been withheld from production based upon the
voluminous and frivolous objections.
Movant request the objections be sticken and responses be ordered to comply with
196.3(c).
Request for Production #1
Request for Production #2
Request for Production #3
Request for Production #4
Request for Production #5
Request for Production #5a
Request for Production #6
Request for Production #7
Request for Production #8
Request for Production #9
Request for Production #10
Request for Production #11
Request for Production #12
Request for Production #13
2
Request for Production #14
Request for Production #15
Request for Production #16
Request for Production #17
Request for Production #18
Request for Production #19
Request for Production #20
Request for Production #21
Request for Production #22
Request for Production #23
Request for Production #24
Request for Production #25
Request for Production #26
Request for Production #27
Request for Production #28
Request for Production #29
Request for Production #30
Request for Production #31
Request for Production #32
Request for Production #33
Request for Production #34
Request for Production #35
Request for Production #36
Request for Production #37
Request for Production #38
Request for Production #39
Request for Production #40
Request for Production #41
Request for Production #42
Request for Production #43
Request for Production #44
Request for Production #45
Request for Production #46
Request for Production #47
Request for Production #48
Request for Production #49
Request for Production #50
Request for Production #51
Request for Production #51a
Request for Production #52
Request for Production #53
Request for Production #54
Request for Production #55
Request for Production #56
3
Request for Production #57
Request for Production #58
Request for Production #59
Request for Production #60
Request for Production #61
Request for Production #62
Request for Production #63
Request for Production #64
Request for Production #65
Request for Production #66
Request for Production #67
Request for Production #68
Request for Production #68a
Request for Production #69
Request for Production #70
Request for Production #71
INTERROGATORIES
There were only two interrogatories served on the Plaintiff A*Med Management, Inc.
Both receive objections which provide Plaintiff an argument that additional facts may be
offered at trial and seek the protection of the objection to facilitate the duty to disclose.
Interrogatory #1 [Pg 7]
Movant requests the objections be stricken and the Plaintiff be ordered to respond
fully.
Interrogatory #2 [Pg 16]
Movant requests the objections be stricken and the Plaintiff be ordered to respond
fully.
C. Attorney’s Fees
The abuse of discovery is obvious. When form style objections are used to each and
interrogatory and request for production it can hardly be argued the response were made in
good faith. Therefore Movant request compensation in the amount of $3000 which
represents 10 hours @ $300 an hour for the preparation and presentation of this motion.
D. Prayer
For these reasons, Movant asks the court to set this motion for hearing and, after the
hearing, grant the motion to strike objections and to compel complete responses to
4
Interrogatories and Requests for Production that comply with the Rules. Further,
Defendant requests an award of attorney’s fees as sanctions for abuse of the discovery
process.
Respectfully submitted,
TOM DICKENS
State Bar No. 05820800
Attorney at Law
6342 Stewart Road, #265
Galveston, Texas 77551
281-924-8786
Tomdickenslaw@gmail.com
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record and/or
party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on January 7, 2021 by
electronic filing manager mailing:
Johnson & Associates Attorneys at
Law, PLLC Christopher L. Johnson
303 East Main Street, Suite 100
League City, Texas 77573
chris@Johnson-
Attorneys.com
Main: 281-895-2410
Fax: 409-263-1020
Daniel Barrera
Attorney for Co-Defendant
______________________________
TOM DICKENS
Attorney for Eutiva Thomas
6
Cause No. 19-CV-1003
A*MED MANAGEMENT, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs, §
§
§
v. § 56th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
§
EUTIVA THOMAS, THE §
PROVIDENCE HOME HEALTH §
SERVICES, INC., and THE §
PROVIDENCE HOSPICE, INC. §
Defendants. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF A*MED SERVICES, INC. D/B/A A*MED HOME HEALTH’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT EUTIVA THOMAS’ DISCOVERY
To: Defendant, Eutiva Thomas, by and through her attorneys of record, Tom Dickens, 104
Moody Avenue (21st), Suite 101, Galveston, Texas 77550.
Comes now Plaintiff A*MED SERVICES, INC. D/B/A A*MED HOME HEALTH’s and
serves this its objections and responses to Defendant Eutiva Thomas’ Discovery received
December 8, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
Johnson & Associates
Attorneys at Law, PLLC
By: /s/ Christopher L. Johnson
Christopher L. Johnson
Texas State Bar No. 24069999
chris@Johnson-Attorneys.com
Justin M. Kornegay
Texas State Bar No. 24077668
justin@Johnson-Attorneys.com
Morgan A. Jenkins
Texas State Bar No. 24106141
morgan@Johnson-Attorneys.com
303 East Main Street, Suite 100
League City, Texas 77573
Main:281-895-2410
1
Fax: 409-263-1020
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 7, 2021 a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument
was served upon all counsel of record as follows:
Via Electronic Service:
Tom Dickens
104 Moody Ave. (21st), Suite 101
Galveston, Texas 77550
/s/ Christopher L. Johnson
Christopher L. Johnson
2
PLAINTIFF A*MED SERVICES, INC. D/B/A A*MED HOME HEALTH’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT EUTIVA THOMAS’ DISCOVERY
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: Please produce each and every document utilized to prepare
A*MED HEALTH’s responses to Requests for Disclosure 194.2 (d).
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of
written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or
the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1 and seeks to invade the
attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000001-515, 1178-1186, 1189-1414. Plaintiff will
supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2: Any and all documents evidencing or relevant to any
allegation that Eutiva Thomas began soliciting referral sources of A*MED HEALTH or any
affiliated company.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the
possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper
scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available
proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects
to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a
fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents
produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled
AMED_000064-65, 1178-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become
available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Any and all documents evidencing that Euvita Thomas
violated any contractual obligation to A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of
written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or
the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this
Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing
expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents
produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled
AMED_000005-65, 1178-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become
available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: Any and all documents evidencing any “non-monetary”
damages to A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company which you contend were proximately
caused by Euvita Thomas.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of
written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or
the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this
Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing
expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents
produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled
AMED_000005-8, 20-65. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become
available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: Any and all documents evidencing a causal connection
between any action of Euvita Thomas, which A*MED HEALTH contends violated Euvita
Thomas’ NON-COMPETE, and any damages claimed by A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated
company
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as
seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to
Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s
custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this
Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the
responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer
at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents
produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled
AMED_000001-65, 1178-1186, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as
additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5a: Any and all documents evidencing a causal connection
between any action of Euvita Thomas, which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company
contends violated the Non-Compete Agreement, and any specific loss of or failure to obtain an
agreement with a patient or potential patient or client.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
4
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the
possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper
scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available
proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects
to this Request as it violates patient confidentiality under State and Federal Law.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000001-65, 1178-1186, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff
will supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5b: Any and all tax returns and quarterly reports, along with
supporting documents for the years 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2020 for A*MED HEALTH and
each affiliated company.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as
seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information.
No responsive documents will be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: Any and all documents evidencing or relevant to A*MED
HEALTH’s contention, or that of an affiliated company, that a significant amount time and
resources were expended developing or acquiring a large amount of confidential information which
was provided to Tiva Thompson after she signed the non-compete agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing
expedition. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written
discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the
proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-1186, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will
supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: Any and all documents evidencing information which
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends constitute “confidential information”
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it
is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff
further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff
5
objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or
equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not
relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000137-193, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will
supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7a: Any and all documents evidencing measures taken by
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company or on the behalf of A*MED HEALTH or any
affiliated company to gather, accumulate, update, conceal or protect their “confidential
information” both before and after the execution of the non-compete agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome as it
is not reasonably restricted in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking
information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care,
or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff further objects to this Request
because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party
to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000020-63, 66-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as
additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: Any and all documents evidencing information which
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends constitute “confidential information” as of
the March 18, 2019.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it
is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade
secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for
Production No. 7.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to
Request for Production No. 7.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8a: Any and all documents evidencing information which
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends constitute “confidential information” on or
after March 19, 2020 until the termination of Eutiva Thomas’ employment with A*MED
HEALTH or any affiliated company.
6
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it
is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade
secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for
Production No. 7.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to
Request for Production No. 7.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: Any and all documents evidencing your contention that
Evita Thomas’s general knowledge and experience in the industry did not give her knowledge of the
existence of potential referral sources of A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company prior to the
execution of the non- compete agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as argumentative
and assuming facts not in evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking
confidential and trade secret information.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-515. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: Any and all documents evidencing your contention that
Eutiva Thomas more knowledge of referral sources on the day of her resignation than she did as of
March 18, 2020.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as vague and confusing as Plaintiff cannot
reasonably determine what documents are being requested. : Plaintiff objects to this
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or
scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to his request as seeking
information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant.
Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or
control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking
documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1: Admit that one of the reasons Eutiva Thomas was employed as
of March 18, 2020 was because of her knowledge of referral sources in Galveston County.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff does not have the
7
knowledge to answer this Request for Admission.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2: Admit that you do not know the extent to which Eutiva
Thomas had knowledge of potential referral sources before she signed the Non-Compete
Agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not
reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 3: Admit that you do not know the extent to which Eutiva
Thomas had knowledge of potential referral sources before she signed the Non-Compete
Agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not
reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, Deny.
INTERROGATORY 1: Please explain the factual basis of your contention that Eutiva Thomas
obtained “confidential Information” from A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company
subsequent to the signing of the Non-Compete Agreement which she did not possess prior to the
signing of the Non-Compete Agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff further objects to
this interrogatory as seeking a narrative response without the benefit of direct questioning.
Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as
it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party
intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Thomas has access to Plaintiffs’
entire network of referral sources, in fact, it was Thomas’s job duties to develop and
maintain the relationships with A*Med’s referral sources, creating confidential information
on behalf of Plaintiffs at Plaintiffs’ expense. Additionally, Thomas had access to Plaintiffs’
information regarding insurance companies, prices, suppliers, and marketing strategies
until the time her employment with Plaintiffs ended. Thomas attended Plaintiffs’ Monday
meetings where confidential information was discussed, including financial information
and marketing strategies, through the last day of her employment with Plaintiffs. Plaintiff
reserves the right to supplement.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 4: Admit the medical facilities or business which are potential
referral sources will disclose upon request the identity of the individuals within their facility or
business who have the authority to or are authorized to make referrals for business such as
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company was soliciting.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not
reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to
8
this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, deny.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: Any and all non-compete agreements executed by Eutiva
Thomas with any affiliated company.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000020-63. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: The entire contents of any personnel file or relevant to any
job or performance of Eutiva Thomas.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it
is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control
and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents
not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-1177. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: Any and documents containing the information that
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends to be confidential information as of March
18, 2020.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it
is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade
secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for
Production No. 7.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to
Request for Production No. 7.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13a: Any and documents containing the information that
9
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends to be confidential information after March
19, 2020 until the time of Tiva Thomas’ resignation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it
is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade
secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for
Production No. 7.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to
Request for Production No. 7.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: Any and all documents which you contend were related to
or evidence Eutiva Thomas’ management of relationships with referral sources and account
management responsibilities.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the
possession of third parties.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-515, 746-755, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff
will supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Any and all documents evidencing expenses for which
A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company paid for Eutiva Thomas to develop referral sources.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-515.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 5: Admit the identity of individuals who do referrals is available
to service providers such as A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague,
ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought and
therefore denies.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 6: Admit the identity of referral sources is not information
exclusively available to A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company.
10
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague,
ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought and
therefore denies.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 8: Admit that Eutiva Thompson had knowledge as how to obtain
the identity of referral sources as of March 28, 2019.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague,
ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought and
therefore denies.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 9: Admit that neither A*MED HEALTH nor any affiliated
company has no knowledge of when and how Eutiva Thomas obtained the identity of any referral
source after she signed the non-compete agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague,
ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 10: Admit that neither A*MED HEALTH nor any affiliated
company has no knowledge of which referral sources Eutiva Thomas obtained the identity of after
her she signed her non-compete agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague,
ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, deny.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16: Any all documents evidencing any “training for her
position” which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company provided Eutiva Thomas after she
signed the Non-Compete Agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-1177.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Any all documents evidencing what access to the
confidential information which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company provided to Eutiva
Thompson after she signed the Non-Compete Agreement.
11
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this
request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18: Any all documents evidencing what access to the
confidential information that A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company provided to Eutiva
Thomas after she signed the non-compete agreement.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this
request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 17. Plaintiff objects to this Request as
overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as
seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: Any all documents evidencing what A*MED HEALTH or
any affiliated company paid for Eutiva Thompson’s development efforts as referenced the latest
pleadings.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking document not relevant and not
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-193, 000194-515, 000516-570, 000690-697,
001175-1177. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21: Any and all documents evidencing what referral sources
were developed or discovered by Eutiva Thomas after the execution of the Non-Compete
Agreement and before her termination or resignation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking information already in the
possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant.
12
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: After the signing of the Non-Compete Agreement what
training on how to develop referral sources and to properly market A*MED HEALTH or any
affiliated company services were provided to Eutiva Thomas.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking document not relevant and not likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative
of Request for Production No. 16.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24: After the signing of the non-compete agreement what
training on how to develop referral sources and to properly market the company’s services was
provided to Eutiva Thomas.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret
information. Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No.
16.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000066-515, 690-726, 731-735, 746-755, 760-933, 946.
Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 12: Admit the non-compete agreement executed is the only
agreement which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company is contending that Eutiva Thomas
breached.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support
any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED
HEALTH or any affiliated company which were not DME, or Hospital or Nursing Home Services,
Physician and nurse Practitioner.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of
Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as
argumentative as it assumes facts not in evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking
document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
13
Defendant objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care,
or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal
all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see documents produced
by Defendants and Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000005-8, 64-65,
1178-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support
any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED
HEALTH or any affiliated company which were DME, or Hospital or Nursing Home Services,
Physician and nurse Practitioner.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of
Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as
argumentative as it assumes facts not in evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking
document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care,
or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal
all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000064-65. Plaintiff will supplement as additional
documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support
any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED
HEALTH or any affiliated company which were Home Health and Hospice.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of
Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking
document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control
and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds
the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its
available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document
production bates labeled AMED_000064-65, 1178-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as
additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 28: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support
14
any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED
HEALTH or any affiliated company which were something other than Home Health and Hospice.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited
in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of
Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking
document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff
objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control
and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds
the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its
available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, none. Plaintiff will supplement
as additional documents become available.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 13: Admit you have no documents which can identify any
marketing done by Eutiva Thomas after her termination were for any services of Home Health and
Hospice as
Preview
Filed: 1/7/2021 10:01 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 49512736 By: Shailja Dixit 1/8/2021 8:51 AM CAUSE NO. 19-CV-1003 A*MED MANAGEMENT, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § § v. § § EUTIVA THOMAS, § 56TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE PROVIDENCE HOME HEALTH § SERVICES, INC., and THE § PROVIDENCE HOSPICE, INC. § Defendants § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO STRIKE A*MED SERVICES, INC’S OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL RESPONSE FOR SANCTIONS Defendant/Movant asks the court to strike objections, compel responses and for sanction against A*MED SERVICES, INC’S responses to INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION and REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. In support thereof the Defendant would show the following: A. Introduction & Facts The case is set for trial Feb 16, 2021. Until approximately September 30, 2020 when A*Med Services, Inc. was added as a party [Second Amended Petition] Argument & Authorities The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). The discovery responses which were full of objections and nonresponsive answers are impeding the very purpose of discovery. The purpose of sanctions is to secure compliance with the rules, to deter future violation of the rules, and to punish parties that violate the rules. Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1992). Movant asks the court to impose sanctions of attorney’s fees to bring these objections before the Court for a ruling. Movant has spent 3 hours preparing the very specific challenge to the “responses” and has spent an additional 2 hours traveling to and participating in the hearing on this motion. 1 The reasonable hourly fee for the attorney handling this matter is $300.00 an hour based upon more than 30 years of practicing law. Movant seeks an award of $1,500 for attorney’s fees. B. Specific Objections To Be Stricken And Complete Answers And Responses Compelled A copy of the response to the interrogatories and requests for production are attached hereto as an exhibit. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION: As evidence of the discovery abuse of the Plaintiff A*Med Services, Inc. objected to each and every single Request for Production In addition to the abuse of objections the Plaintiff refused to comply with the requirements of Rule 196.3(c) which requires the following; “The responding party must either produce documents and tangible things as they are kept in the usual course of business or organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.” Plaintiff A*Med Services, Inc has responded to a portion of the responses by referencing previously produced documents. Movant is required to determine what documents are responsible and is then, based upon the abuses of discovery, unable to determine what documents, if any, have been withheld from production based upon the voluminous and frivolous objections. Movant request the objections be sticken and responses be ordered to comply with 196.3(c). Request for Production #1 Request for Production #2 Request for Production #3 Request for Production #4 Request for Production #5 Request for Production #5a Request for Production #6 Request for Production #7 Request for Production #8 Request for Production #9 Request for Production #10 Request for Production #11 Request for Production #12 Request for Production #13 2 Request for Production #14 Request for Production #15 Request for Production #16 Request for Production #17 Request for Production #18 Request for Production #19 Request for Production #20 Request for Production #21 Request for Production #22 Request for Production #23 Request for Production #24 Request for Production #25 Request for Production #26 Request for Production #27 Request for Production #28 Request for Production #29 Request for Production #30 Request for Production #31 Request for Production #32 Request for Production #33 Request for Production #34 Request for Production #35 Request for Production #36 Request for Production #37 Request for Production #38 Request for Production #39 Request for Production #40 Request for Production #41 Request for Production #42 Request for Production #43 Request for Production #44 Request for Production #45 Request for Production #46 Request for Production #47 Request for Production #48 Request for Production #49 Request for Production #50 Request for Production #51 Request for Production #51a Request for Production #52 Request for Production #53 Request for Production #54 Request for Production #55 Request for Production #56 3 Request for Production #57 Request for Production #58 Request for Production #59 Request for Production #60 Request for Production #61 Request for Production #62 Request for Production #63 Request for Production #64 Request for Production #65 Request for Production #66 Request for Production #67 Request for Production #68 Request for Production #68a Request for Production #69 Request for Production #70 Request for Production #71 INTERROGATORIES There were only two interrogatories served on the Plaintiff A*Med Management, Inc. Both receive objections which provide Plaintiff an argument that additional facts may be offered at trial and seek the protection of the objection to facilitate the duty to disclose. Interrogatory #1 [Pg 7] Movant requests the objections be stricken and the Plaintiff be ordered to respond fully. Interrogatory #2 [Pg 16] Movant requests the objections be stricken and the Plaintiff be ordered to respond fully. C. Attorney’s Fees The abuse of discovery is obvious. When form style objections are used to each and interrogatory and request for production it can hardly be argued the response were made in good faith. Therefore Movant request compensation in the amount of $3000 which represents 10 hours @ $300 an hour for the preparation and presentation of this motion. D. Prayer For these reasons, Movant asks the court to set this motion for hearing and, after the hearing, grant the motion to strike objections and to compel complete responses to 4 Interrogatories and Requests for Production that comply with the Rules. Further, Defendant requests an award of attorney’s fees as sanctions for abuse of the discovery process. Respectfully submitted, TOM DICKENS State Bar No. 05820800 Attorney at Law 6342 Stewart Road, #265 Galveston, Texas 77551 281-924-8786 Tomdickenslaw@gmail.com 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record and/or party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on January 7, 2021 by electronic filing manager mailing: Johnson & Associates Attorneys at Law, PLLC Christopher L. Johnson 303 East Main Street, Suite 100 League City, Texas 77573 chris@Johnson- Attorneys.com Main: 281-895-2410 Fax: 409-263-1020 Daniel Barrera Attorney for Co-Defendant ______________________________ TOM DICKENS Attorney for Eutiva Thomas 6 Cause No. 19-CV-1003 A*MED MANAGEMENT, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, § § § v. § 56th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF § EUTIVA THOMAS, THE § PROVIDENCE HOME HEALTH § SERVICES, INC., and THE § PROVIDENCE HOSPICE, INC. § Defendants. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF A*MED SERVICES, INC. D/B/A A*MED HOME HEALTH’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT EUTIVA THOMAS’ DISCOVERY To: Defendant, Eutiva Thomas, by and through her attorneys of record, Tom Dickens, 104 Moody Avenue (21st), Suite 101, Galveston, Texas 77550. Comes now Plaintiff A*MED SERVICES, INC. D/B/A A*MED HOME HEALTH’s and serves this its objections and responses to Defendant Eutiva Thomas’ Discovery received December 8, 2020. Respectfully submitted, Johnson & Associates Attorneys at Law, PLLC By: /s/ Christopher L. Johnson Christopher L. Johnson Texas State Bar No. 24069999 chris@Johnson-Attorneys.com Justin M. Kornegay Texas State Bar No. 24077668 justin@Johnson-Attorneys.com Morgan A. Jenkins Texas State Bar No. 24106141 morgan@Johnson-Attorneys.com 303 East Main Street, Suite 100 League City, Texas 77573 Main:281-895-2410 1 Fax: 409-263-1020 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 7, 2021 a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all counsel of record as follows: Via Electronic Service: Tom Dickens 104 Moody Ave. (21st), Suite 101 Galveston, Texas 77550 /s/ Christopher L. Johnson Christopher L. Johnson 2 PLAINTIFF A*MED SERVICES, INC. D/B/A A*MED HOME HEALTH’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT EUTIVA THOMAS’ DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: Please produce each and every document utilized to prepare A*MED HEALTH’s responses to Requests for Disclosure 194.2 (d). RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1 and seeks to invade the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000001-515, 1178-1186, 1189-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2: Any and all documents evidencing or relevant to any allegation that Eutiva Thomas began soliciting referral sources of A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000064-65, 1178-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Any and all documents evidencing that Euvita Thomas violated any contractual obligation to A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000005-65, 1178-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: Any and all documents evidencing any “non-monetary” damages to A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company which you contend were proximately caused by Euvita Thomas. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000005-8, 20-65. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: Any and all documents evidencing a causal connection between any action of Euvita Thomas, which A*MED HEALTH contends violated Euvita Thomas’ NON-COMPETE, and any damages claimed by A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers to documents produced by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000001-65, 1178-1186, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5a: Any and all documents evidencing a causal connection between any action of Euvita Thomas, which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends violated the Non-Compete Agreement, and any specific loss of or failure to obtain an agreement with a patient or potential patient or client. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the 4 possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this Request as it violates patient confidentiality under State and Federal Law. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000001-65, 1178-1186, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5b: Any and all tax returns and quarterly reports, along with supporting documents for the years 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2020 for A*MED HEALTH and each affiliated company. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. No responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: Any and all documents evidencing or relevant to A*MED HEALTH’s contention, or that of an affiliated company, that a significant amount time and resources were expended developing or acquiring a large amount of confidential information which was provided to Tiva Thompson after she signed the non-compete agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-1186, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: Any and all documents evidencing information which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends constitute “confidential information” RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff 5 objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000137-193, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7a: Any and all documents evidencing measures taken by A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company or on the behalf of A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company to gather, accumulate, update, conceal or protect their “confidential information” both before and after the execution of the non-compete agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is not reasonably restricted in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff further objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000020-63, 66-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: Any and all documents evidencing information which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends constitute “confidential information” as of the March 18, 2019. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 7. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8a: Any and all documents evidencing information which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends constitute “confidential information” on or after March 19, 2020 until the termination of Eutiva Thomas’ employment with A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company. 6 RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 7. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: Any and all documents evidencing your contention that Evita Thomas’s general knowledge and experience in the industry did not give her knowledge of the existence of potential referral sources of A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company prior to the execution of the non- compete agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as argumentative and assuming facts not in evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-515. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: Any and all documents evidencing your contention that Eutiva Thomas more knowledge of referral sources on the day of her resignation than she did as of March 18, 2020. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as vague and confusing as Plaintiff cannot reasonably determine what documents are being requested. : Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to his request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1: Admit that one of the reasons Eutiva Thomas was employed as of March 18, 2020 was because of her knowledge of referral sources in Galveston County. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff does not have the 7 knowledge to answer this Request for Admission. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2: Admit that you do not know the extent to which Eutiva Thomas had knowledge of potential referral sources before she signed the Non-Compete Agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 3: Admit that you do not know the extent to which Eutiva Thomas had knowledge of potential referral sources before she signed the Non-Compete Agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, Deny. INTERROGATORY 1: Please explain the factual basis of your contention that Eutiva Thomas obtained “confidential Information” from A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company subsequent to the signing of the Non-Compete Agreement which she did not possess prior to the signing of the Non-Compete Agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as seeking a narrative response without the benefit of direct questioning. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Thomas has access to Plaintiffs’ entire network of referral sources, in fact, it was Thomas’s job duties to develop and maintain the relationships with A*Med’s referral sources, creating confidential information on behalf of Plaintiffs at Plaintiffs’ expense. Additionally, Thomas had access to Plaintiffs’ information regarding insurance companies, prices, suppliers, and marketing strategies until the time her employment with Plaintiffs ended. Thomas attended Plaintiffs’ Monday meetings where confidential information was discussed, including financial information and marketing strategies, through the last day of her employment with Plaintiffs. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 4: Admit the medical facilities or business which are potential referral sources will disclose upon request the identity of the individuals within their facility or business who have the authority to or are authorized to make referrals for business such as A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company was soliciting. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to 8 this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, deny. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: Any and all non-compete agreements executed by Eutiva Thomas with any affiliated company. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000020-63. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: The entire contents of any personnel file or relevant to any job or performance of Eutiva Thomas. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-1177. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: Any and documents containing the information that A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends to be confidential information as of March 18, 2020. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 7. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13a: Any and documents containing the information that 9 A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company contends to be confidential information after March 19, 2020 until the time of Tiva Thomas’ resignation. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and constitutes a fishing expedition. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 7. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: Any and all documents which you contend were related to or evidence Eutiva Thomas’ management of relationships with referral sources and account management responsibilities. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-515, 746-755, 1189-1231, 1235-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Any and all documents evidencing expenses for which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company paid for Eutiva Thomas to develop referral sources. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-515. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 5: Admit the identity of individuals who do referrals is available to service providers such as A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague, ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought and therefore denies. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 6: Admit the identity of referral sources is not information exclusively available to A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company. 10 RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague, ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought and therefore denies. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 8: Admit that Eutiva Thompson had knowledge as how to obtain the identity of referral sources as of March 28, 2019. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague, ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought and therefore denies. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 9: Admit that neither A*MED HEALTH nor any affiliated company has no knowledge of when and how Eutiva Thomas obtained the identity of any referral source after she signed the non-compete agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague, ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 10: Admit that neither A*MED HEALTH nor any affiliated company has no knowledge of which referral sources Eutiva Thomas obtained the identity of after her she signed her non-compete agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because the phrase “identity” is vague, ambiguous, and Plaintiff is unable to accurately determine the information sought. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, deny. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16: Any all documents evidencing any “training for her position” which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company provided Eutiva Thomas after she signed the Non-Compete Agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-1177. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Any all documents evidencing what access to the confidential information which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company provided to Eutiva Thompson after she signed the Non-Compete Agreement. 11 RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18: Any all documents evidencing what access to the confidential information that A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company provided to Eutiva Thomas after she signed the non-compete agreement. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 17. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: Any all documents evidencing what A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company paid for Eutiva Thompson’s development efforts as referenced the latest pleadings. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking document not relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-193, 000194-515, 000516-570, 000690-697, 001175-1177. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21: Any and all documents evidencing what referral sources were developed or discovered by Eutiva Thomas after the execution of the Non-Compete Agreement and before her termination or resignation. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff further objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. 12 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: After the signing of the Non-Compete Agreement what training on how to develop referral sources and to properly market A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company services were provided to Eutiva Thomas. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking document not relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 16. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000137-193. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24: After the signing of the non-compete agreement what training on how to develop referral sources and to properly market the company’s services was provided to Eutiva Thomas. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as seeking confidential and trade secret information. Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative of Request for Production No. 16. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000066-515, 690-726, 731-735, 746-755, 760-933, 946. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 12: Admit the non-compete agreement executed is the only agreement which A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company is contending that Eutiva Thomas breached. RESPONSE: Admit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company which were not DME, or Hospital or Nursing Home Services, Physician and nurse Practitioner. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as argumentative as it assumes facts not in evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 Defendant objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see documents produced by Defendants and Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000005-8, 64-65, 1178-1414. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company which were DME, or Hospital or Nursing Home Services, Physician and nurse Practitioner. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as argumentative as it assumes facts not in evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000064-65. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company which were Home Health and Hospice. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please see Plaintiff’s document production bates labeled AMED_000064-65, 1178-1186. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 28: Any and all documents which are relevant to or support 14 any contention that Eutiva Thomas was marketing services after her employment with A*MED HEALTH or any affiliated company which were something other than Home Health and Hospice. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking information already in the possession of Defendant and/or equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking document no relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this request as seeking documents outside of Plaintiff’s custody, care, or control and in the possession of third parties. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it exceeds the proper scope of written discovery as it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the party intends to offer at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, none. Plaintiff will supplement as additional documents become available. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 13: Admit you have no documents which can identify any marketing done by Eutiva Thomas after her termination were for any services of Home Health and Hospice as