Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
8/22/2019 1:06 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Rhonda Burks
N0. DC-19-06155
THE ROMACK COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff §
§
V. § 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JP-BENT TREE, LP, REC GP, LLC and RE §
CLOSING, LLC §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY FILED ON JULY 9, 20191
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff, The Romack Company, Inc. (“Romack”) responds in opposition t0 Defendants’
Motion for Expedited Discovery and in support, shows the Court as follows:
I.
Defendants are required t0 show good cause as a prerequisite to “limited and specific”
discovery under the TCPA. Tex. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.006(b). They didn’t. The Dallas
Court of Appeals recently addressed “good cause” in Mansik & Young Plaza LLC v. K-Town
Mgmt., LLC, 05-15-00353-CV, 2016 WL 4306900, at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 15, 2016, n0
pet).
In Mansik, the Court affirmed an order dismissing Plaintiff’ s libel claims involving four
articles in a Korean newspaper under the TCPA. Among other things, on appeal, the Appellant
complained that the trial court had erred in denying their motion seeking limited discovery. Id. at
1
As set forth in Romack’s Motion t0 Strike filed 0n August 21 2019, this was the original expedited discovery set t0
,
be heard 0n July 23, 2019, but not heard at that time. Accordingly, it was the discovery pending at the time 0f last
week’s hearing scheduling the hearing for the 23rd.
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 1
*8. The motion sought the deposition of the appellee, who was editor of the newspaper, who had
allegedly expressed guilt about the articles and apologized for writing them in a meeting. Id.
Affidavits were attached to the motion from other participants in the meeting. Id. The Court held
as follows:
When it considered the motion to dismiss, the trial court had before
it the affidavits of Young Ho Kim and Kang detailing what Park said
in the meeting. The court could have concluded this evidence
provided sufficient information for purposes of determining the
motion to dismiss and that further discovery was not needed. We
cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request
to take Park’s deposition.
Id. at *9.
Moreover, the Defendants have asked the Court for six (6) requests for production which
include every document at issue in the case—and then some. The documents Defendants have
requested include all documents and communications relating to Romack’s work (RFP 1), all
documents and communications relating to the lien (RFP 2), and all documents and
communications between Romack and HJMM that concern, refer or relate to the work Romack
alleges or intends to allege has been performed at the Partnership Property and the liens Romack
filed on the Partnership Property and/or to the above-captioned lawsuit (RFP 5). Moreover,
Plaintiff has asked for all of HJMM’s legal fee invoices to Romack (RFP 3), all engagement letters
between Romack and HJMM (RFP 4), and all invoices for legal fees issue to Jordan in JP Bent
Tree GP, LLC v. RE Closing, LLC, et. al. (RFP 6). These requests are not limited and specific.
Instead, RFPs 1, 2 and 5 cast a broad net as to every single document or communication pertaining
to the underlying claims in the lawsuit. And, RFPs numbers 3 and 6 seek to invade the attorney-
client privilege and work product doctrine. Further, it is undisputed that HJMM is engaged by
Romack so there is no need for Plaintiff to discover the terms of that engagement at this point as
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 2
requested by RFP 4. And, RFP 6 has no relevance whatsoever—nor is it limited and specific to
the motion to dismiss the motion to disqualify HJMM. Instead, what Defendants seek to do by
RFP 6, is to invade the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by seeking all of the
fee statements HJMM sent to Jordan in Cause No. DC-18-14634; JP Bent Tree, GP, LLC et. al. v.
RE Closing, LLC, et. al. That case, the Constituency Lawsuit, is wholly unrelated, and as
Defendants well know, as their counsel was involved in that case as well, contains not one written
allegation concerning Romack. And, as Defendants’ counsel also knows, HJMM never
represented JP Bent Tree, LP or any of the other Defendants in this case so they certainly would
have no right to obtain privileged information related to HJMM’s representation of other
individuals or entities. Along these lines, and extremely troubling is the fact that Defendants’
quest to obtain these fee bills from the Constituency Lawsuit is indeed a blatant attempt to try and
gain an advantage through information protected by privilege and work product in a pending suit
against Jordan and others; Cause No. DC-19-07168; JP Bent Tree, LP et. al. v. JP Bent Tree GP,
LLC, et. al. also in this Court. RFP 6, like the other discovery sought, is overreaching, overbroad
and not limited or specifically tailored as required by Rule 27.006(b).
In short, because Defendants have not shown good cause and because Defendants’
discovery requests are not limited and specific as required by the TCPA, the Defendants’ Motion
for Expedited Discovery should be denied.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff respectfully prays that Defendants’
Motion for Expedited Discovery be denied and that the Court grant Plaintiff such further and
additional relief, both at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may show itself to be justly entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
HOLMGREN, JOHNSON: MITCHELL
MADDEN, LLP
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 3
/s/ MitchellMadden
Mitchell Madden (Attorney-in-charge)
State Bar N0. 12789350]
Email: mmadden@hjmmlegal.com
Dennis M. Holmgren
State Bar No. 24036799
dennis@hjmmlegal.com
tflores@hjmmlegal.com
Montfort Place
13800 Montfort Drive, Suite 160
Dallas, Texas 75240
Tele: 972/484-7780
Fax: 972/484-7743
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served on
counsel ofrecord in accordance with the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure this 22nd day 0f August,
2019.
/s/Melissa Johnson
Melissa Johnson
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 4
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 8/22/2019 1:06 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Rhonda Burks N0. DC-19-06155 THE ROMACK COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff § § V. § 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § JP-BENT TREE, LP, REC GP, LLC and RE § CLOSING, LLC § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY FILED ON JULY 9, 20191 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff, The Romack Company, Inc. (“Romack”) responds in opposition t0 Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Discovery and in support, shows the Court as follows: I. Defendants are required t0 show good cause as a prerequisite to “limited and specific” discovery under the TCPA. Tex. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.006(b). They didn’t. The Dallas Court of Appeals recently addressed “good cause” in Mansik & Young Plaza LLC v. K-Town Mgmt., LLC, 05-15-00353-CV, 2016 WL 4306900, at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 15, 2016, n0 pet). In Mansik, the Court affirmed an order dismissing Plaintiff’ s libel claims involving four articles in a Korean newspaper under the TCPA. Among other things, on appeal, the Appellant complained that the trial court had erred in denying their motion seeking limited discovery. Id. at 1 As set forth in Romack’s Motion t0 Strike filed 0n August 21 2019, this was the original expedited discovery set t0 , be heard 0n July 23, 2019, but not heard at that time. Accordingly, it was the discovery pending at the time 0f last week’s hearing scheduling the hearing for the 23rd. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 1 *8. The motion sought the deposition of the appellee, who was editor of the newspaper, who had allegedly expressed guilt about the articles and apologized for writing them in a meeting. Id. Affidavits were attached to the motion from other participants in the meeting. Id. The Court held as follows: When it considered the motion to dismiss, the trial court had before it the affidavits of Young Ho Kim and Kang detailing what Park said in the meeting. The court could have concluded this evidence provided sufficient information for purposes of determining the motion to dismiss and that further discovery was not needed. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request to take Park’s deposition. Id. at *9. Moreover, the Defendants have asked the Court for six (6) requests for production which include every document at issue in the case—and then some. The documents Defendants have requested include all documents and communications relating to Romack’s work (RFP 1), all documents and communications relating to the lien (RFP 2), and all documents and communications between Romack and HJMM that concern, refer or relate to the work Romack alleges or intends to allege has been performed at the Partnership Property and the liens Romack filed on the Partnership Property and/or to the above-captioned lawsuit (RFP 5). Moreover, Plaintiff has asked for all of HJMM’s legal fee invoices to Romack (RFP 3), all engagement letters between Romack and HJMM (RFP 4), and all invoices for legal fees issue to Jordan in JP Bent Tree GP, LLC v. RE Closing, LLC, et. al. (RFP 6). These requests are not limited and specific. Instead, RFPs 1, 2 and 5 cast a broad net as to every single document or communication pertaining to the underlying claims in the lawsuit. And, RFPs numbers 3 and 6 seek to invade the attorney- client privilege and work product doctrine. Further, it is undisputed that HJMM is engaged by Romack so there is no need for Plaintiff to discover the terms of that engagement at this point as _____________________________________________________________________________________________ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 2 requested by RFP 4. And, RFP 6 has no relevance whatsoever—nor is it limited and specific to the motion to dismiss the motion to disqualify HJMM. Instead, what Defendants seek to do by RFP 6, is to invade the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by seeking all of the fee statements HJMM sent to Jordan in Cause No. DC-18-14634; JP Bent Tree, GP, LLC et. al. v. RE Closing, LLC, et. al. That case, the Constituency Lawsuit, is wholly unrelated, and as Defendants well know, as their counsel was involved in that case as well, contains not one written allegation concerning Romack. And, as Defendants’ counsel also knows, HJMM never represented JP Bent Tree, LP or any of the other Defendants in this case so they certainly would have no right to obtain privileged information related to HJMM’s representation of other individuals or entities. Along these lines, and extremely troubling is the fact that Defendants’ quest to obtain these fee bills from the Constituency Lawsuit is indeed a blatant attempt to try and gain an advantage through information protected by privilege and work product in a pending suit against Jordan and others; Cause No. DC-19-07168; JP Bent Tree, LP et. al. v. JP Bent Tree GP, LLC, et. al. also in this Court. RFP 6, like the other discovery sought, is overreaching, overbroad and not limited or specifically tailored as required by Rule 27.006(b). In short, because Defendants have not shown good cause and because Defendants’ discovery requests are not limited and specific as required by the TCPA, the Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Discovery should be denied. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff respectfully prays that Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Discovery be denied and that the Court grant Plaintiff such further and additional relief, both at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may show itself to be justly entitled. Respectfully Submitted, HOLMGREN, JOHNSON: MITCHELL MADDEN, LLP _____________________________________________________________________________________________ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 3 /s/ MitchellMadden Mitchell Madden (Attorney-in-charge) State Bar N0. 12789350] Email: mmadden@hjmmlegal.com Dennis M. Holmgren State Bar No. 24036799 dennis@hjmmlegal.com tflores@hjmmlegal.com Montfort Place 13800 Montfort Drive, Suite 160 Dallas, Texas 75240 Tele: 972/484-7780 Fax: 972/484-7743 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served on counsel ofrecord in accordance with the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure this 22nd day 0f August, 2019. /s/Melissa Johnson Melissa Johnson RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PAGE 4