Motion to Compel Discovery in Nathan Hatcher And Hatcher Armory, LLC vs William Pace, Houston Armory, LP, Houston Armory Technology Group, LLC, And Armory Dealer Management, Inc| Trellis.Law

On January 14, 2016 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Hatcher Armory, Llc, Hatcher, Nathan, and Armory Dealer Management, Inc, Houston Armory, Lp, Houston Armory Technology Group, Llc, Pace, William P., for Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt in the District Court of Fort Bend County.

Preview
Filed
9/23/2016 4:24:15 PM
Annie Rebecca Elliott
District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Ashley Alaniz
Cause No. 2016-DCV-229243

NATHAN HATCHER, and HATCHER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ARMORY, LLC
Plaintiffs,

v. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

WILLIAM PACE, HOUSTON ARMORY,
L.P., HOUSTON ARMORY TECHNOLOGY 400™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GROUP, LLC, and ARMORY DEALER
MANAGEMENT, INC.
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL HOUSTON ARMORY, LP’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
INTERROGATORIES AND RE UESTS FOR PRODUCTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE 400™ DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Nathan Hatcher and Hatcher Armory, LLC, and moves this

honorable Court to compel Defendant Houston Armory. LP, to provide complete responses to

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production and for grounds and reasons as follows.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Nathan Hatcher and Hatcher Armory, LLC, sued Defendant, Houston

Armory, L.P., for common law fraud and fraud in the inducement, constructive fraud and

breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, gross

negligence, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, conversion and a violation of the Texas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 2 discovery-control plan. The discovery

period in this suit will continue until thirty days prior to a final trial setting or further order of

this Court. This case is not yet set for trial.
BACKGROUND

This is a case involving a series of transactions for the purchase of certain weapons

controlled by the National Firearms Act (NFA) for over two-hundred thousand dollars.

Defendant acted as the agent for Plaintiff and flew to Tennessee to evaluate the value and

suitability of a certain collection of weapons owned by David McKin the (McKin Collection).

Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s representations and paid two-hundred thousand dollars for the

collection of weapons owned by David McKin. However, Defendant misrepresented the contents

of the collection of weapons owned by David McKin. Defendant concealed the fact that the

McKin Collection included a M249 Machine Gun for which Plaintiff had already paid Defendant

eighty-thousand dollars for in a separate transaction. Defendant further duplicitously and

separately sold again to Plaintiff contents of the McKin Collection which Plaintiff had already

paid for. Defendant is still in possession of certain property purchased by Plaintiff that has never

been conveyed to Plaintiff.

On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant with the discovery request in

accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21(a) and 21a.

By Rule 11 Agreement the Defendants deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of

Interrogatories and Requests for Production was extended to June 24, 2016.

WAIVER

Defendant did not timely serve responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendant

Houston Armory, L.P., and Plaintiffs’ Request for Production to Defendant Houston Armory,

LP. and therefore waived all objections. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(e); see Remington Arms Co. v.

Canales, 837 S$.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. 1992). On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant with
the discovery in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21(a) and 21a. By Rule 11

Agreement the Defendants deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendant

Houston Armory, L.P., and Plaintiffs’ Request for Production to Defendant Houston Armory,

L.P. was extended to June 24, 2016. Plaintiff attaches the Rule 11 Agreement to this motion as

Exhibit “A” and incorporates it by reference. Defendant did not serve responses to Plaintiffs’

Interrogatories to Defendant Houston Armory, L.P., and Plaintiffs’ Request for Production to

Defendant Houston Armory, L.P. until June 27, 2016. Plaintiff attaches Defendants Certificate of

Discovery to this motion as Exhibit “B” and incorporates it by reference. Defendant should not

be relieved of the waiver because it cannot show good cause for not timely responding to the

discovery requests. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(e).

RE UE: FOR PRODUCTION NUMBERS 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17-19 AND 21-29

Plaintiffs request the Court to compel a complete response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for

Production. Defendant refused to respond fully to request for production Numbers 1, 2, 10, 11,

12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1 requires the party to make a “complete response” to

a discovery request. More than eighty days have passed and the Defendant has failed to

supplement or provide a date when a supplement will occur, which has been requested by

telephone conference between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant’s counsel.

Request for Production No. 1

All communication, including but not limited to email, voicemail, text message, or writing,
between you or your employees and the Plaintiff regarding the purchase of a collection of
National Firearms Act (NFA) controlled weapons from David McKin (the “McKin collection”).

RESPONSE: Defendant Houston Armory LP will supplement its response
Request for Production No. 2

All communication, including but not limited to email, voicemail, text message, or writing,
between you or your employees and the Plaintiff regarding the purchase of the M249 Machine
Gun.