Preview
FILED
12/8/2021 5:14 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Cassandra Walker DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907
PK RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC §
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., §
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMlVIY CHO, §
INDIVIDUALLY §
Defendants. § IOIST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION T0 COMPEL DISCOVERY
FROM TOZEE CONSTRUCTION. INC., GIANT BLUE. INC. AND JIMMY CHO
COMES NOW PK Restaurant Group, LLC, and BNG management Group, LLC, Plaintiffs
in the above styled and numbered cause, and file this their Second Motion to Compel Discovery,
and would show unto the Court as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
1. On August 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants.
2. On September 13, 2021 at approximately 3:00 p.m., the Court held it’s first hearing on the
First Motion to Compel. The Court barely made it into the subject of the hearing because
Defendants complained about conferencing, several of which had already occurred. The
Court Ordered the parties to further confer and come back.
3. On September 29, 2021, the Court held the second hearing on the First Motion to Compel.
The Court made it through a few of the requests, at which point the Court had an emergency
and had to leave so the Court told the Parties it would schedule the continuation of a hearing
in the next week or so.
4. On October 21, 2021, having not heard from the Court, Plaintiff set the third hearing on
the First Motion to Compel for November 17, 2021.
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 1 of 9
5. On November 1, 2021, the Coult entered an Order Granting the Motion to Compel,
compelling the documents and information requested. The Order provided Defendants with
fourteen (14) days to comply with the Order.
6. Defendants have not amended either the interrogatory answers or responses to production
since then.
7. Plaintiffs’ counsel has emailed Defendants’ counsel on November l6, 18, 23, 24, and
December 2, 2021, asking when Defendants were going to comply.
8. To date, December 8, 2021, over thirty (30) days after the order, Defendants haven’t
amended or produced a single document in response to the Order.
H. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. Controlling Law
1. The goal of discovery is to uncover the truth so that disputes may be decided by what facts
are revealed, not by what facts are concealed. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure intended to
allow for broad discovery in order to narrow fact issues and controversies and, thus, promote the
efficient and economical resolution of disputes.‘ To accomplish these goals, courts allow a litigant
to discover any non-privileged material, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in a
pending action, or reasonably calculated to lead to evidence relating to any issue that is or may
arise in the pending action? Very limited exceptions to the strongly preferred policy of openness
are recognized in Texas.3
2. Courts have inherent authority to enter orders to compel discovery and to allow the parties
relevant discovery.4
1
See, e.g., Martinez v. Rutledge, 592 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1979, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) (recognizing
purpose of discovery to encourage fullest disclosure of facts and issues prior to trial and, thus, rules pertaining to
discovery should be liberally construed).
2
See, e.g., TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a); Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493, 484-95 (Tex. 1988); Lindsey v. O’Neill,
689 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1985).
3
State v. Lowry, 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991).
4
See TEx. R. CIV. P. 21501(b).
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 2 of 9
3. One hundred fifty five (155) days have passed since Plaintiffs sent discovery to
Defendants. Thirty-seven (37) days have passed since the Order compelling Defendants’ responses
to Discovery requests was entered.
B. Interrogatories Not Fully Answered
l. Defendants’ responses to interrogatories remain incomplete.
2. Defendants have failed to fully answer several interrogatories to which this Court has
previously ordered Defendants to respond.
3. Because these interrogatories are relevant and the subject matters are within the scope of
valid discovery, Plaintiffs ask the court to compel the following responses:
a. Tozee Construction, Inc. ’s Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories
i. Interrogatory No. 1: residence and business address, residence and business
telephone number.
ii. Interrogatory No. 2: date of formation, payment terms, who was present when it
was agreed, whether it was oral or written, and if written who signed on behalf of
each party.
iii. Interrogatory No. 3: basis for stoppage of work at each of the (3) properties, the
date of stoppage of work, and what terms were provided to resume work.
iv. Interrogatory No. 4: what property each subcontractor worked at, the name of the
contact person, the addresses of the subcontractors.
v. Interrogatory No. 5: what property each payment was related to.
vi. Interrogatory No. 6: dates, methods of tender, amounts, subcontractor names, and
for which property for all payments made to subcontractors.
vii. Interrogatory No. 7: dates, methods of tender, amounts, from whom purchased, and
for which property for all material purchases.
viii. Interrogatory No. 8: how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your
experience and performance history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs
about the work to be done on each job.
ix. Interrogatory No. 9: dates you served notices of intent to file liens, the amount
claimed on each lien, and the date you provided notice of each filed lien.
x. Interrogatory No. 10: the date the signs were taken, who individually took the signs,
and why the signs were taken.
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 3 of 9
Xi. Interrogatory No. 11: the addresses and telephone numbers of employees that
worked on the three properties.
xii. Interrogatory No. 12: explanation or description of how substantially performed.
xiii. Verification: unsigned
b. Cho ’s First Amended Answers t0 Interrogatories
i. Interrogatory No. l: residence and business address, residence and business
telephone number.
ii. Interrogatory No. 3: basis for stoppage of work at each of the (3) properties, the
date of stoppage of work, and what terms were provided to resume work.
iii. Interrogatory No. 4: names of subcontractors, addresses of subcontractors,
telephone numbers of the subcontractors, what property each subcontractor worked
at, the name of the contact person.
iv. Interrogatory No. 5: date, method of tender, amount or all payments related to the
three properties.
Interrogatory No. 6: date, method of tender, amount, to whom, and for what
property payments were made to subcontractors.
Vi. Interrogatory No. 7: date, method of tender, amount, to whom, and for what
property payments were made for materials.
Vii. Interrogatory No. 8: how did you get the jobs, how you met Plaintiffs, what you
told Plaintiffs about your experience and performance history, and what discussions
you had with Plaintiffs about the work to be done on each job.
viii. Interrogatory No. 9: have liens been placed, when the notices of intent were served,
the dates of filing, the amounts claimed, and the dates of post-filing notices.
ix. Interrogatory No. 10: the date the signs were taken, who individually took the signs,
and why the signs were taken.
Interrogatory No. 11; names, addresses, and phone numbers of employees that
worked on the three properties.
xi. Interrogatory No. 12: explain and describe how you substantially performed
xii. Verification: Not sworn, doesn’t follow Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 132.001.
c. Giant Blue ’s First Amended Answers to Interrogatories
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 4 of 9
Interrogatory No. 1: residence and business address, residence and business
telephone number.
ii. Interrogatory No. 2: date of formation, payment terms, who was present when it
was agreed, Whether it was oral or written, and if written who signed on behalf of
each party.
iii. Interrogatory No. 3: basis for stoppage of work at each of the (3) properties, the
date of stoppage of work, and what terms were provided to resume work.
iv. Interrogatory No. 4: what property the subcontractor worked at, the name of the
contact person. Also says “in my individual capacity”?
Interrogatory No. 5: what property each payment was related to.
Vi. Interrogatory No. 6: for which property for the payment made to the subcontractors.
Vii. Interrogatory No. 8: how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your
experience and performance history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs
about the work to be done on each job.
viii. Interrogatory No. 10: the date the signs were taken, who individually took the signs,
and why the signs were taken
xiv. Interrogatory No. 11: the addresses of employees that worked on the three
properties.
ix. Interrogatory No. 12: explanation or description of how substantially performed.
X. Verification: Not sworn, doesn’t follow Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 132.001.
C. Documents Still Not Produced
4. Many documents responsive to the requests for production have not been produced despite
the lapse of time and in direct violation of the Order.
5. Plaintiffs ask the court to compel Defendants comply with the Order and to produce,
without further delay, all of the documents responsive to the following requests:
i. Request No. 1 - the Irving Contract and Dallas Contract
ii. Request No. 2
—
missing photographs in the text messages produced/incomplete
iii. Request No. 3
—
missing photographs in the text messages produced/incomplete
iv. Request No. 4 no subcontractor agreements, no payments
—
Requests No. 5 Copy of Dallas lien is incomplete, none for Carrollton, no notices
V. —
or intent to file or notices of having file liens
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 5 of 9
Vi. Request No. 6 — Dallas and Irving permits produced are not in the name of Tozee
or Giant Blue or Cho, no permits at all for Carrollton
Vii. Request No. 7
—
nothing produced (inspection notes, green tags, red tags,
communications regarding inspection)
viii. Request No. 8 — no subcontractor list
ix. Request No. 9 no documents regarding calculations
—
Request No. 10
— no change orders
xi. Request No. 11 — no fee agreement
xii. Request No. 12 — no fee statements
xiii. Request No. 13
— no licenses or certifications regarding construction
xiv. Request No. 14 no licenses or subcontractors
—
Request No. 15 no documents regarding criminal charges
xv. —
xvi. Request No. 16 — no lien releases
xvii. Request No. 17 — no recorded or written statements
xviii. Request No. l8 — no documents showing persons with knowledge of relevant facts
xix. Request No. 19 no documents expected to be used as exhibits
—
xx. Request No. 20 — no photos or videos of the work
xxi. Request No. 21
— no audio recordings or transcripts
xxii. Request No. 22 — no notes regarding meetings, communications, or conversations
xxiii. Request No. 23 —
missing majority of documents and information and what was
produced was redacted heavily
xxiv. Documents are not bates labeled or organized as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 196
and there is no affidavit claiming this is how they are stored in the ordinary course
of business.
D. Documents Produced But Deficient
6. Defendants responded to a majority of the document requests with the representation that
it will “be supplemented, if any”.
7. The production of the documents remains incomplete. In some cases, documents
responsive to requests have been produced but production has either been incomplete or
Defendants have failed to confirm that all documents responsive to the requests have been
produced.
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 6 of 9
8. The following documents are illegible:
i. Page 16/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production (It seems to
be an Advance A/C, Refrigeration & Heating Service Order Invoice).
ii. Page 18/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production (It seems to
be an Advance A/C, Refrigeration & Heating Service Order Invoice).
iii. Page 26/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production
(Undersigned believes the invoice number is 296953 on the top right of the page)
iv. Page 34/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production
(Undersigned believes the invoice number is 296952 on the top right of the page)
9. The following documents are heavily redacted without explanation and no privilege log was
provided:
i. Pages 36, 38 —
44, 45 —
52, 54, 56 —
64, 66, 70, 72 — 77 of production with First
Amended Response to Production.
ii. The copy of Jimmy Cho’s driver’s license produced on September 28, 2021 has his
driver’s license number redacted.
iii. The CBB bank records produced on September 28, 2021 pages 2 -3 are heavily
redacted.
10. The following documents are blank:
i. Page 67/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production.
ii. Page 69/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production.
11. The following documents are incomplete:
i. Page 19/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell
what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $448.28)
ii. Page 20/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell
what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $3,262.37)
iii. Page 21/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell
what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $668.03)
iv. Page 22/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell
what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $3 98.40)
v. Page 23/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell
what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $3,153.24)
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 7 of 9
Vi. Page 24/78 has three (3) receipts over the top and was scanned improperly so you
cannot tell What it is. (The top receipt shows $44.65)
12. Plaintiffs request the Court Order Defendants to cure the illegible, redacted, blank, and
incomplete documents, supplement anywhere the responses say “will supplement,” and
produce all documents responsive to the request, including those referenced herein.
III. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs PK Restaurant Group, LLC, and
BNG Management Group, LLC, respectfully urges the Court to set this Motion for hearing, and
after the hearing, to compel Defendants to serve adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests and comply faithfully with this Court’s previous Order without delay.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jordan Whiddon
TAILIM SONG
State Bar No. 00792845
tsong@tailimsong.com
JORDAN WHIDDON
State Bar No. 24093350
jwhiddon@tailimsong.com
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 528-8400 Telephone
(214) 528-8402 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of
record on the 8th day of December, 2021.
/s/ Jordan Whiddon
Jordan Whiddon
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for movant has personally attempted to contact counsel for respondent as follows:
November 16, 2021 at 3:40 pm. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel a copy
of the order and asked when he would be complying.
November 18, 2021 at 2:42 p.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel
following up on the email from the 16th.
November 23, 2021 at 11:18 a.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel
following up a second time on the email from the 16th and letting him know that if he
doesn’t respond Plaintiffs’ counsel would have to file a motion to compel.
November 24, 2021 at 11:20 a.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel yet
again letting him know when he got a copy of the Order.
December 2, 2021 at 4:36 p.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel a fifth
time following up and asking if Defendants will voluntarily amend.
Certified t0 the Day 0fDecember 8, 2021 by:
/s/ Jordan Whiddon
Jordan Whiddon
Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 9 of 9
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Tailim Song on behalf of Tailim Song
Bar No. 00792845
tsong@tailimsong.com
Envelope ID: 59848614
Status as of 12/9/2021 8:25 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
William Chu wmchulaw@aol.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Jordan Whiddon 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
william Knisley knisley.wmchulaw@gmail.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Law Offices ofWilliam Chu docs.wmchulaw@gmail.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Chris LValentine cvalentine@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Office Efiles wmchulawefile@gmail.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 12/8/2021 5:14 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Cassandra Walker DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907 PK RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC § Plaintiffs, § § V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., § GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMlVIY CHO, § INDIVIDUALLY § Defendants. § IOIST JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION T0 COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM TOZEE CONSTRUCTION. INC., GIANT BLUE. INC. AND JIMMY CHO COMES NOW PK Restaurant Group, LLC, and BNG management Group, LLC, Plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered cause, and file this their Second Motion to Compel Discovery, and would show unto the Court as follows: I. BACKGROUND 1. On August 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants. 2. On September 13, 2021 at approximately 3:00 p.m., the Court held it’s first hearing on the First Motion to Compel. The Court barely made it into the subject of the hearing because Defendants complained about conferencing, several of which had already occurred. The Court Ordered the parties to further confer and come back. 3. On September 29, 2021, the Court held the second hearing on the First Motion to Compel. The Court made it through a few of the requests, at which point the Court had an emergency and had to leave so the Court told the Parties it would schedule the continuation of a hearing in the next week or so. 4. On October 21, 2021, having not heard from the Court, Plaintiff set the third hearing on the First Motion to Compel for November 17, 2021. Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 1 of 9 5. On November 1, 2021, the Coult entered an Order Granting the Motion to Compel, compelling the documents and information requested. The Order provided Defendants with fourteen (14) days to comply with the Order. 6. Defendants have not amended either the interrogatory answers or responses to production since then. 7. Plaintiffs’ counsel has emailed Defendants’ counsel on November l6, 18, 23, 24, and December 2, 2021, asking when Defendants were going to comply. 8. To date, December 8, 2021, over thirty (30) days after the order, Defendants haven’t amended or produced a single document in response to the Order. H. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Controlling Law 1. The goal of discovery is to uncover the truth so that disputes may be decided by what facts are revealed, not by what facts are concealed. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure intended to allow for broad discovery in order to narrow fact issues and controversies and, thus, promote the efficient and economical resolution of disputes.‘ To accomplish these goals, courts allow a litigant to discover any non-privileged material, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending action, or reasonably calculated to lead to evidence relating to any issue that is or may arise in the pending action? Very limited exceptions to the strongly preferred policy of openness are recognized in Texas.3 2. Courts have inherent authority to enter orders to compel discovery and to allow the parties relevant discovery.4 1 See, e.g., Martinez v. Rutledge, 592 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1979, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) (recognizing purpose of discovery to encourage fullest disclosure of facts and issues prior to trial and, thus, rules pertaining to discovery should be liberally construed). 2 See, e.g., TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a); Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493, 484-95 (Tex. 1988); Lindsey v. O’Neill, 689 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1985). 3 State v. Lowry, 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991). 4 See TEx. R. CIV. P. 21501(b). Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 2 of 9 3. One hundred fifty five (155) days have passed since Plaintiffs sent discovery to Defendants. Thirty-seven (37) days have passed since the Order compelling Defendants’ responses to Discovery requests was entered. B. Interrogatories Not Fully Answered l. Defendants’ responses to interrogatories remain incomplete. 2. Defendants have failed to fully answer several interrogatories to which this Court has previously ordered Defendants to respond. 3. Because these interrogatories are relevant and the subject matters are within the scope of valid discovery, Plaintiffs ask the court to compel the following responses: a. Tozee Construction, Inc. ’s Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories i. Interrogatory No. 1: residence and business address, residence and business telephone number. ii. Interrogatory No. 2: date of formation, payment terms, who was present when it was agreed, whether it was oral or written, and if written who signed on behalf of each party. iii. Interrogatory No. 3: basis for stoppage of work at each of the (3) properties, the date of stoppage of work, and what terms were provided to resume work. iv. Interrogatory No. 4: what property each subcontractor worked at, the name of the contact person, the addresses of the subcontractors. v. Interrogatory No. 5: what property each payment was related to. vi. Interrogatory No. 6: dates, methods of tender, amounts, subcontractor names, and for which property for all payments made to subcontractors. vii. Interrogatory No. 7: dates, methods of tender, amounts, from whom purchased, and for which property for all material purchases. viii. Interrogatory No. 8: how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your experience and performance history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs about the work to be done on each job. ix. Interrogatory No. 9: dates you served notices of intent to file liens, the amount claimed on each lien, and the date you provided notice of each filed lien. x. Interrogatory No. 10: the date the signs were taken, who individually took the signs, and why the signs were taken. Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 3 of 9 Xi. Interrogatory No. 11: the addresses and telephone numbers of employees that worked on the three properties. xii. Interrogatory No. 12: explanation or description of how substantially performed. xiii. Verification: unsigned b. Cho ’s First Amended Answers t0 Interrogatories i. Interrogatory No. l: residence and business address, residence and business telephone number. ii. Interrogatory No. 3: basis for stoppage of work at each of the (3) properties, the date of stoppage of work, and what terms were provided to resume work. iii. Interrogatory No. 4: names of subcontractors, addresses of subcontractors, telephone numbers of the subcontractors, what property each subcontractor worked at, the name of the contact person. iv. Interrogatory No. 5: date, method of tender, amount or all payments related to the three properties. Interrogatory No. 6: date, method of tender, amount, to whom, and for what property payments were made to subcontractors. Vi. Interrogatory No. 7: date, method of tender, amount, to whom, and for what property payments were made for materials. Vii. Interrogatory No. 8: how did you get the jobs, how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your experience and performance history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs about the work to be done on each job. viii. Interrogatory No. 9: have liens been placed, when the notices of intent were served, the dates of filing, the amounts claimed, and the dates of post-filing notices. ix. Interrogatory No. 10: the date the signs were taken, who individually took the signs, and why the signs were taken. Interrogatory No. 11; names, addresses, and phone numbers of employees that worked on the three properties. xi. Interrogatory No. 12: explain and describe how you substantially performed xii. Verification: Not sworn, doesn’t follow Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 132.001. c. Giant Blue ’s First Amended Answers to Interrogatories Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 4 of 9 Interrogatory No. 1: residence and business address, residence and business telephone number. ii. Interrogatory No. 2: date of formation, payment terms, who was present when it was agreed, Whether it was oral or written, and if written who signed on behalf of each party. iii. Interrogatory No. 3: basis for stoppage of work at each of the (3) properties, the date of stoppage of work, and what terms were provided to resume work. iv. Interrogatory No. 4: what property the subcontractor worked at, the name of the contact person. Also says “in my individual capacity”? Interrogatory No. 5: what property each payment was related to. Vi. Interrogatory No. 6: for which property for the payment made to the subcontractors. Vii. Interrogatory No. 8: how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your experience and performance history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs about the work to be done on each job. viii. Interrogatory No. 10: the date the signs were taken, who individually took the signs, and why the signs were taken xiv. Interrogatory No. 11: the addresses of employees that worked on the three properties. ix. Interrogatory No. 12: explanation or description of how substantially performed. X. Verification: Not sworn, doesn’t follow Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 132.001. C. Documents Still Not Produced 4. Many documents responsive to the requests for production have not been produced despite the lapse of time and in direct violation of the Order. 5. Plaintiffs ask the court to compel Defendants comply with the Order and to produce, without further delay, all of the documents responsive to the following requests: i. Request No. 1 - the Irving Contract and Dallas Contract ii. Request No. 2 — missing photographs in the text messages produced/incomplete iii. Request No. 3 — missing photographs in the text messages produced/incomplete iv. Request No. 4 no subcontractor agreements, no payments — Requests No. 5 Copy of Dallas lien is incomplete, none for Carrollton, no notices V. — or intent to file or notices of having file liens Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 5 of 9 Vi. Request No. 6 — Dallas and Irving permits produced are not in the name of Tozee or Giant Blue or Cho, no permits at all for Carrollton Vii. Request No. 7 — nothing produced (inspection notes, green tags, red tags, communications regarding inspection) viii. Request No. 8 — no subcontractor list ix. Request No. 9 no documents regarding calculations — Request No. 10 — no change orders xi. Request No. 11 — no fee agreement xii. Request No. 12 — no fee statements xiii. Request No. 13 — no licenses or certifications regarding construction xiv. Request No. 14 no licenses or subcontractors — Request No. 15 no documents regarding criminal charges xv. — xvi. Request No. 16 — no lien releases xvii. Request No. 17 — no recorded or written statements xviii. Request No. l8 — no documents showing persons with knowledge of relevant facts xix. Request No. 19 no documents expected to be used as exhibits — xx. Request No. 20 — no photos or videos of the work xxi. Request No. 21 — no audio recordings or transcripts xxii. Request No. 22 — no notes regarding meetings, communications, or conversations xxiii. Request No. 23 — missing majority of documents and information and what was produced was redacted heavily xxiv. Documents are not bates labeled or organized as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 196 and there is no affidavit claiming this is how they are stored in the ordinary course of business. D. Documents Produced But Deficient 6. Defendants responded to a majority of the document requests with the representation that it will “be supplemented, if any”. 7. The production of the documents remains incomplete. In some cases, documents responsive to requests have been produced but production has either been incomplete or Defendants have failed to confirm that all documents responsive to the requests have been produced. Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 6 of 9 8. The following documents are illegible: i. Page 16/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production (It seems to be an Advance A/C, Refrigeration & Heating Service Order Invoice). ii. Page 18/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production (It seems to be an Advance A/C, Refrigeration & Heating Service Order Invoice). iii. Page 26/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production (Undersigned believes the invoice number is 296953 on the top right of the page) iv. Page 34/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production (Undersigned believes the invoice number is 296952 on the top right of the page) 9. The following documents are heavily redacted without explanation and no privilege log was provided: i. Pages 36, 38 — 44, 45 — 52, 54, 56 — 64, 66, 70, 72 — 77 of production with First Amended Response to Production. ii. The copy of Jimmy Cho’s driver’s license produced on September 28, 2021 has his driver’s license number redacted. iii. The CBB bank records produced on September 28, 2021 pages 2 -3 are heavily redacted. 10. The following documents are blank: i. Page 67/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production. ii. Page 69/78 of production with First Amended Response to Production. 11. The following documents are incomplete: i. Page 19/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $448.28) ii. Page 20/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $3,262.37) iii. Page 21/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $668.03) iv. Page 22/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $3 98.40) v. Page 23/78 has a receipt over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell what it is. (The receipt is upside down and shows $3,153.24) Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 7 of 9 Vi. Page 24/78 has three (3) receipts over the top and was scanned improperly so you cannot tell What it is. (The top receipt shows $44.65) 12. Plaintiffs request the Court Order Defendants to cure the illegible, redacted, blank, and incomplete documents, supplement anywhere the responses say “will supplement,” and produce all documents responsive to the request, including those referenced herein. III. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs PK Restaurant Group, LLC, and BNG Management Group, LLC, respectfully urges the Court to set this Motion for hearing, and after the hearing, to compel Defendants to serve adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and comply faithfully with this Court’s previous Order without delay. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jordan Whiddon TAILIM SONG State Bar No. 00792845 tsong@tailimsong.com JORDAN WHIDDON State Bar No. 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480 Dallas, Texas 75251 (214) 528-8400 Telephone (214) 528-8402 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record on the 8th day of December, 2021. /s/ Jordan Whiddon Jordan Whiddon Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 8 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for movant has personally attempted to contact counsel for respondent as follows: November 16, 2021 at 3:40 pm. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel a copy of the order and asked when he would be complying. November 18, 2021 at 2:42 p.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel following up on the email from the 16th. November 23, 2021 at 11:18 a.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel following up a second time on the email from the 16th and letting him know that if he doesn’t respond Plaintiffs’ counsel would have to file a motion to compel. November 24, 2021 at 11:20 a.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel yet again letting him know when he got a copy of the Order. December 2, 2021 at 4:36 p.m. — Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel a fifth time following up and asking if Defendants will voluntarily amend. Certified t0 the Day 0fDecember 8, 2021 by: /s/ Jordan Whiddon Jordan Whiddon Plaintiffs Second Motion to Further Compel Page 9 of 9 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Tailim Song on behalf of Tailim Song Bar No. 00792845 tsong@tailimsong.com Envelope ID: 59848614 Status as of 12/9/2021 8:25 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status William Chu wmchulaw@aol.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT Jordan Whiddon 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT william Knisley knisley.wmchulaw@gmail.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT Law Offices ofWilliam Chu docs.wmchulaw@gmail.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT Chris LValentine cvalentine@tailimsong.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT Office Efiles wmchulawefile@gmail.com 12/8/2021 5:14:01 PM SENT