Preview
FILED.
DALLAS COUNTY
8/31/2015 2:43:41 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Cause No. DC-15-07174
JOHN Doe |, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and as Next Friend of JOHN Doe II, a
Minor,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM
C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, LEVONNA C.
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, ALEXANDER A.
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY 44™ JupIiciaL DistRICT
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND JIM PATTISON
U.S.A., INC.
Defendants.
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS
John Doe I and John Doe II ("Plaintiffs"), file this Second Amended Motion to
Compel Discovery and Strike Objections against The Anderson Private School, William C.
Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson and Alexander A. Anderson ("Defendants"), and in
support thereof would show the Court as follows:
MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS
1 On July 17, 2015 Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of
Documents on Defendants. See Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendants
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 1
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and email serving the discovery attached hereto as Exhibit
“BM
Defendants’ Responses were due no later than August 17, 2015. However,
Defendants have cavalierly chosen to simply ignore the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
by refusing to respond to the discovery requests.
2. Despite this fact, Plaintiffs tried to work with Defendants to give them an
extra week to produce the required information, but Defendants simply refused, and
indicated they would respond on their own time table, even though the discovery
contained only 12 requests, seeking information readily available to Defendants. See
email correspondence between counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants attached hereto as
Exhibit “C”.
3 Because Defendants have failed to timely respond to discovery, any
potential objections to the requests are waived. 7exas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.2(e).
4 Moreover, Defendants have now responded to Plaintiffs’ Request for
Disclosure. However, Defendants’ responses are wholly inadequate. See Defendants’
Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Disclosure attached hereto as Exhibit “D’.
Defendants have failed to provide any substantive response regarding Rule 194.2(e).
This case involves the sexual assault of a young boy by a teacher at his school while on a
field trip at Ripley's Believe it or Not (“RBION"). At a minimum, Plaintiffs need to know
the names of the people from The Anderson Private School (teachers, parents and
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 2
students) that were present at RBION on the day of the field trip. This is information
that is readily available to Defendants, but not to Plaintiffs. One would also think that
there are other employees at Defendant The Anderson Private School with knowledge of
relevant facts that were not present at RBION, but Defendants failed to list anyone other
than the parties to the suit.
5 Moreover, in response to Rule 194.2(g) regarding insurance agreements,
Defendants simply say that they “are not aware of any such agreements.” This vague
response needs clarification. Is there an insurance policy that may cover the claims in
this action or not? Defendants act as if there might be one somewhere, but they just
aren't aware of it.
6. Since Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion to Compel was filed, Defendants
finally responded to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents. See Defendants’
Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.
Despite serving their responses 11 days late, Defendants only add insult to injury by
simply asserting baseless objections without supporting evidence of any kind, and by
failing to produce the most basic information. Regardless of whether this Court allows
Defendants to assert their objections well past the deadline, said objections are baseless
and should be struck on their own lack of merit.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 3
7 As such, Plaintiffs request that this Court Order Defendants to immediately
comply with the 7exas Rules of Civil Procedure, by fully and completely responding to
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendants without objection, and to fully
respond to Plaintiffs’ Request for Disclosure. Plaintiffs further seek any other relief that
they may be entitled, both at law and in equity.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
By:
JOHN D. SLOAN, JR.
a5
State Bar No.: 00792080
Douclas W. LUKASIK
State Bar No. 24046326
SLOAN MATNEY, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave.
Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75219
214.253.0101 (Sloan)
214.253.0103 (Lukasik)
214.237.5474 (Facsimile)
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
dlukasik@sloanmatney.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for Movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a
conference at which there was a substantive discussion on every item presented to the
Court in this motion and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve
those matters presented.
5
Certified to the 31st day of August, 2015 by:
John D. Sloan, Jr.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that on the 31st day of August, 2015 a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document has been served via e-service and email on:
S. Todd Parks
Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P.
10440 North Central Expressway
Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75231
todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com
ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com
William H. Kincaid
Kincaid Legal
P.O. Box 457
Sanger, Texas 76266
whk4888@yahoo.com
Greg Westfall
The Westfall Firm
4200 W. Vickery Blvd., 2"4 Floor
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
greg @westfallfirm.com
5
John D. Sloan, Jr.
4847-1991-5559, v. 1
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 6
Exhibit "A"
Cause No. DC-15-07174
JOHN Doe I, Individually IN THE DISTRICT CouRT
and as Next Friend of JoHN Doe II, a
Minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM
C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, LEVONNA C.
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, ALEXANDER A.
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY 44™ Jupictat DistRIcT
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND JIM PATTISON
U.S.A., INC.
Defendants.
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS
To Anderson Defendants by and through their counsel Greg Westfall, The Westfall
gnd
Firm 4200 W. Vickery Blvd. Floor, Fort Worth, Texas 76107.
greg@westfallfirm.com
Pursuant to Rule 196.1 of the Texas RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiffs request that
Defendants The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, individually, LeVonna C.
Anderson, individually and Alexander A. Anderson, individually (referred to collectively
herein as the “Anderson Defendants") respond to the following Requests for Production
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 1
and serve such responses upon the undersigned attorneys on or before thirty (30) days
after service of these Requests.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
JOHN D. SLOAN, JR.
a
State Bar No.: 00792080
Doucas W. LUKASIK
State Bar No. 24046326
SLOAN MATNEY, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave.
Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75219
214.253.0101 (Sloan)
214.253.0103 (Lukasik)
214.237.5474 Fax
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
dlukasik@sloanmatney.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 17th day of July, 2015 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document has been served via email on:
S. Todd Parks
Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P
10440 North Central Expressway
Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500, Dallas, Texas 75231.
todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com
ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com
Greg Westfall
The Westfall Firm
4200 W. Vickery Blvd., 2"4 Floor
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
greg@westfallfirm.com
John D. Sloan, Jr.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS. Page 3
INSTRUCTIONS
1 To the fullest extent permitted by the Texas RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, these
requests for documents are intended to be continuing in nature. You are requested
and required to supplement your responses when appropriate or necessary to make
them correct and complete.
2. If You contend that You may partially or entirely withhold a requested document
or category of documents because of a rule, privilege, immunity, or other reason, for
each document partially or entirely withheld, identify the document and state the factual
basis on which You claim the privilege or immunity.
3 If Your refusal to produce any document is based upon a claim that the
document is subject to a privilege, state the nature of the claim of privilege, identify the
person upon whose behalf such privilege is claimed, and identify each person who has
revised the document.
4 In the event that any document requested has been lost, deleted or otherwise
destroyed, please identify such document by author(s), addressee(s), date, subject
matter, number of pages, and attachments or appendices, identify all persons to whom
such document was distributed, shown or explained, identify all persons who had
custody of each such document, state the date of loss, deletion or destruction, and
identify the person responsible for the loss, deletion or destruction.
5 Each Request is to be read, construed and responded to separately and
independently without reference to or being limited by any other Request unless
otherwise noted.
6. In answering these Requests, You are required to furnish all information available
to You, including information in the possession, custody or control of Your attorneys,
agents and all other persons acting on Your behalf, and not merely such information
known to You or of Your own personal knowledge. If You cannot answer any of these
Requests in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, You are
required to so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying Your inability to
answer the remainder, stating what information or knowledge You have concerning the
unanswered portions and why You are unable to answer the unanswered portions.
7. The terms “AND” and “OR" are to be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively, whichever is appropriate, so as to bring within the scope of these
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 4
Requests any information or documents that might otherwise be considered beyond its
scope.
8. The singular form of a word is to be interpreted as plural and the plural form of a
word shall be interpreted as singular, whichever is appropriate, so as to bring within the
scope of these Requests any information or documents that might otherwise be
considered beyond its scope.
DEFINITIONS
1 “Plaintiffs” refers to John Doe I, individually and as next friend of John Doe II, a
minor, including, without limitation, their agents, attorneys, accountants, employees,
and all other persons who act on their behalf.’
2. “Father” refers to John Doe I, including, without limitation, his agents, attorneys,
accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on his behalf.
3 “Victim” refers to John Doe II, a minor, including, without limitation, his agents,
attorneys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on his behalf.
4. “Defendants” refers to Defendants The Anderson Private School, William C.
Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, Alexander A. Anderson,
Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., and Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc., as well as their
attorneys, agents and employees.
5. “Ripley” refers to Ripley Entertainment, Inc., including, without limitation, its
agents, attorneys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on its behalf.
’ The identities of John Doe I and John Doe II will be made known to Defendants, but as required and
permitted by law to protect the anonymity of John Doe II, who is a minor sexual assault victim, the
pseudonyms for these individuals are being used herein. Plaintiffs have or will propose and request that
the Court enter a Protective Order to order, inter alia, (1) that all discovery requests and responses are
confidential between the parties and not to be used for any other purpose other than this litigation
thereby permitting free discovery without the need of using pseudonyms or redaction; (2) that prior to the
use or filing of any discovery request or response with the Court and thereby placing the documents in the
open record, that the parties be required to redact identifying information; and (3) that all pleadings and
other documents created to be filed only utilize the pseudonyms for Plaintiffs. However, until such time
as the Court has entered that Order, these Requests will refer to the pseudonyms of Plaintiffs to affect the
purposes of anonymity.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 5
6 The term “communication” means the transmission, sending and/or receipt of
information of any kind by or through any means including, but not limited to, speech
writings, language (machine, foreign or otherwise), computer electronics of any kind
(e.g. e-mail), videotape, photographs, graphs, symbols, signs, floppy disks, CD-ROM
discs, memory sticks, thumb drives, smart phone, text message, telecommunication, cell
phone, telephone, teletype, facsimile, telegram, microfilm, microfiche, photographic film
of all type and other media of any kind. The term “communication” also includes,
without limitation, all records, inquiries, discussions, conversations, explanations,
negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, notices, requests, responses,
demands, complaints, publicity or trade releases and statements of any kind.
7 “Possession” means any information or documents and electronic data within
Your possession, custody or control, including Your attorneys, representatives,
accountants, or any other person acting or purporting to act on Your behalf or in
concert with You. This term also includes any temporary placing of possession,
custody or control of information or documents in the custody of any third party by any
of the foregoing persons.
8. As used herein the term, “document” or “documents” means any original or
copy, including each non-identical copy, whether non-identical because of alteration,
attachments, blanks, comments, notes, deletions, underlying or otherwise, of any written
record, graphic material, or other tangible evidence or thing, however, described or
titled, whether a letter, memorandum, report, affidavit, personal and/or handwritten
note, tape recording, video, film, telegram, fax, transcript, purchase order, catalogue,
brochure, diary, calendar, inter-office or intra-office communication, statement,
investigative report, announcement, deposition, answers to questions, pleading,
judgment, newspaper article, photograph, motion picture and any carbon or
photographic copies of any such material. As used herein, the term “document” is also
intended to include electronically stored information, including electronically generated
and stored data files, computer files, e-mails, email attachments, text messages, archived
voicemail, and data storage devices such as floppy discs, and hard discs. The term
“document” is further intended to include any computer records reflecting earlier drafts,
revisions, addenda, memorandums and the like with regard to any responsive
document.
9 All documents or communications that “relate to" a given subject means all
documents or communications that constitute, contain, embody, comprise, reflect,
identify, state, refer to, deal with, comment on, respond to, describe, analyze, or are in
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 6
any way pertinent to that subject including, without limitation, documents concerning
the presentation of other documents.
10. “You" and/or “Your” refer to the responding party, including, without limitation,
all of its predecessors, successors, parent and affiliate entities, agents, attorneys,
accountants, investment bankers, employees, representatives and all other persons who
act on responding party's behalf.
11. “Any” refers to any and all documents, persons, or entities inclusively, not the
option of responding as to some but not to others.
12. The term “conversation” includes all verbal, written, or electronic communications
that You made, sent or received.
13. The term “Petition” means Plaintiffs’ Original Petition filed in this action and any
subsequent amendments and supplements thereto.
14, The term “this Lawsuit” means Cause No. DC-15-07174, styled John Doe
Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe I, a minor, v. The Anderson Private School,
William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, Alexander A.
Anderson, Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc, and Jim Pattison U.S.A, Inc, pending
in the 44" Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.
15. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships,
unions, associations, federations or any other kind of entity.
16. “Personal e-mail account” means any e-mail account used by You or any of your
employees to send or receive e-mail communications that are relevant to the facts
made this basis of this Lawsuit.
17. As used in these requests, the terms “occurrence,” “day of the occurrence” or
“date of the occurrence” mean the events made the basis of this suit, which occurred on
October 31, 2014, at Ripley's Believe It Or Not, in Grand Prairie, Texas, including the
cause, however remote, of such event in which event has made the basis of this suit.
18. “RBION" means the Ripley's Believe It Or Not at 601 E. Palace Pkwy, Grand Prairie,
Texas 75050 where the occurrence took place.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 7
19. “The Anderson Private School” includes any employees, representatives,
contractors, agents, predecessors, successors and teachers of Defendant The Anderson
Private School.
PRIVILEGED OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
1 If any document requested is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege or
work product, or otherwise, You are requested to submit in lieu of any such information
a written statement no later than the date of the commencement of the document
production:
a) identifying the person or persons who prepared or authored the
document, and, if applicable, the person or persons to whom the
document was sent or shown;
b) specifying the date on which the document was prepared or transmitted;
¢) identifying the subject matter of the document;
qd)describing the nature of the document (e.g., letter, email, text message,
memorandum, etc.);
e) stating the identity of each person who had access to, custody of, and who
received a copy of the document;
identifying the present custodian;
9) stating the reason why the document was not produced; and
h) stating why the document is claimed to be privileged or to constitute work
product.
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD
Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for all documents to be
produced in response to the following document requests is January 1, 2009 to the
present.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 8
COMPUTER-BASED INFORMATION
1 All documents and their metadata portrayed on electronic or electro-magnetic
media shall be produced in the form or forms in which the documents are stored in the
ordinary course of business, retaining all reasonably accessible metadata, but so as to
be in a reasonably usable form enabling, through reasonably modest effort, the
Requesting Party to fairly, accurately and completely access, search, and display and
comprehend the documents’ contents.
2. All documents and their metadata that have been fairly and accurately portrayed
within a commercially available document review database including but not limited to
litigation support databases shall be produced within that database or in a format that
can be directly loaded into such database. Even after producing documents in the
document review database format, the documents’ originals or their fair and accurate
representations shall be preserved as they exist in the ordinary course of business.
3 Documents and their metadata portrayed in the ordinary course of business
within commercial, off-the-shelf e-mail systems including Microsoft Exchange, Lotus
Notes, or IBM Groupwise shall be produced in their native format, or in alternative
readily accessible industry-standard formats that fairly, accurately and completely
represent such documents.
4. Documents and their metadata portrayed in structured electronic databases or
files (excluding e-mail) shall be produced in a format that enables programmatic
management of those documents and their importation into a database. The
documents must be accompanied with reasonably detailed, clear and focused
documentation explaining the documents’ content and format including but not limited
to a data dictionary and data diagrams. Some acceptable formats include: (a) XML
format file(s) but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s) and field level schemas;
(b) Microsoft SQL database(s) but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s) and field
level schemas; (c) Access database(s) but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s),
and fields level schemas; (d) fixed or variable length ASCII delimited files but only if
provided with definitive file(s), tables(s) and field level schemas.
5 Documents and their metadata portrayed in unstructured files generated by
commercially available software system excluding e-mails and structured electronic
databases such as word processing, spreadsheet, image files, text files shall be produced
as those files were stored in the ordinary course of business.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 9
6. Documents and their metadata portrayed on paper or in an industry-standard
image format shall be produced in image format (200 - 300 bpi in group 3 TIF format or
in TIF format). In addition, the relationships among the images shall be described with
respect to the how the images relate to one another (as to document and attachment
boundaries, folder boundaries, and other groupings) using industry-standard or other
reasonably usable electronic data load files which shall be accompanied with reasonably
detailed, clear and focused documentation explaining the load files’ content. In
addition, the text of the documents generated at the time the document or
subsequently generated through industry-standard Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
technology shall be produced in a format that reasonably usable. In addition, all
available descriptions of the documents’ properties shall be produced in a reasonably
accessible data description file along with reasonably detailed, clear and focused
documentation explaining such file's contents.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 10
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTIO!
All documents that constitute or relate to any joint defense agreement or joint
interest agreement pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit.
All documents that constitute or relate to any insurance or indemnity agreements
pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit for the Anderson Defendants.
All documents that constitute or relate to the hiring, credentials, employment,
evaluation, monitoring, review, discipline, or any other personnel matter of any
employees or contractors of The Anderson Private School during the relevant
time period, including a complete copy of his or her employment file, disciplinary
file, correspondences, or any other record maintained by The Anderson Private
School.
All documents that relate to any investigation by The Anderson Private School of
the facts at issue in this Lawsuit.
Any document, police report, note, memorandum, or correspondence relating to
The Anderson Private School's communication with the Grand Prairie Police
Department regarding the occurrence.
A copy of any petition filed by or against Anderson Defendants in any court or
jurisdiction in the State of Texas.
All documents sent to, received from, or reviewed by any retained or
non-retained expert witness in this matter.
Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or
other communications You or your employees or contractors have had with
Plaintiffs since the date of the occurrence.
Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or
other communications You or your employees or contractors had with RBION
regarding the field trip at RBION on the date of the occurrence.
10. Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or
other communications You or your employees or contractors have had with
Ripley or RBION since the date of the occurrence.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 11
11 A complete roster of all students of The Anderson Private School with contact
information (name, address and telephone numbers) for their parents.
12. Any demand letters or complaints to The Anderson Private School alleging
improper treatment of a student.
4841-3442-0005, v. 1
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 12
Exhibit "B"
John Sloan
Ss
From: John Sloan
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 5:08 PM
To: greg @westfallfirm.com; ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com;
Todd.Parks@wbclawfirm.com
Ce: Doug Lukasik
Subject: Doe v. Anderson, et al
Attachments: 150717 Pls 1st RFP to Andersons-signed.pdf; 150717 Anderson Orig Answer.pdf;
150713 Ripley's Orginal Answer.pdf
Counsel:
Please see attached discovery to Anderson Defendants in this matter.
| have also attached copies of each Defendant's Answers, so everyone has a complete file.
John D. Sloan, Jr.
Sloan Matney, LLP
Two Turtle Creek
3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219
214.253.0101 (0.) 214.616.3724 (c.)
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
@ SloanMatney
Exhibit "C"
John Sloan
From: John Sloan
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:30 AM
To: Bill Kincaid
Cc: greg @westfallfirm.com; Anderson Private School
Subject: RE: Doe v. Anderson, et al
Attachments: Doe v. Anderson, et al
| would think you would just ask your co-counsel for it. Nevertheless, the discovery and proof of service is
attached. All objections are now waived.
If you agree to provide all responsive documents and electronic data, without objection, by Monday,
August 24, 2015, | will not file a Motion to Compel. Upon review, you will see that the requests were not
objectionable, so your clients have not been harmed as a result of their late responses.
Please confirm your agreement to Monday's production by noon today, or | will file a Motion to Compel,
and note your opposition.
John D. Sloan, Jr.
Sloan Matney, LLP
Two Turtle Creek
3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219
214.253.0101 (0.) 214.616.3724 (c.)
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
@® SloanMatney
From: Bill Kincaid whka} 8: ho com.
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:11 PM
To: John Sloan
Cc: greq@westfallfirm.com; Anderson Private School
Subject: Re: Doe v. Anderson, et al
Please send me a copy of the Request for Production that you say was due yesterday, since this is
the first I've heard about it.
Thank you,
William H. Kincaid
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:52 PM, John Sloan wrote:
Gentlemen:
Your clients’ Responses to Request for Production were due yesterday. | would like to set up a Dropbox
account for sharing of the native files and pdfs. Please let me know if you will be prepared to produce the
responsive documents and electronic data by tomorrow.
Thank you.
John D. Sloan, Jr.
Sloan Matney, LLP
Two Turtle Creek
3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219
214.253.0101 (0.) 214.616.3724 (c.)
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
@® SloanMatney
Exhibit "D"
NO. DC-15-07174
JOHN DOE |, Individually and as Next Friend of IN THE 44™ JUDICIAL
JOHN DOE II, a Minor,
Plaintiffs
V.
DISTRICT COURT OF
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C.
ANDERSON, Individually, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON,
Individually, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON,
Individually, RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Defendants Alexander A. Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson, and Dr. William C. Anderson,
individually and doing business as The Anderson Private School for the Gifted, Talented, and
Creative, give the following responses to the Request for Disclosure contained in the Original
Petition heretofore filed by John Doe | and John Doe Il:
A. The Anderson Private School for the Gifted, Talented, and Creative, Dr. William C.
Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson, Alexander A. Anderson, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., Jim
Pattison U.S.A., Inc., (alias John Doe !), and
{alias John Doe Il).
Defendants are not aware of any other potential parties at this time.
Plaintiffs have filed a frivolous lawsuit alleging a sexual assault that did not occur.
Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, while
Defendants deny the material allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition.
Defendants have not yet countersued, although they have sent a statutory demand
letter to Plaintiffs. Defendants plan to amend this portion of their Response after such
countersuit is filed.
Plaintiffs already have the telephone numbers and addresses for the parties [The
Anderson Private School for the Gifted, Talented, and Creative, Dr. William C. Anderson,
LeVonna C. Anderson, Alexander A. Anderson, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., Jim Pattison
U.S.A., Inc., (alias John Doe 1), and (alias John
Doe !/)}. Others having knowledge of facts that may be relevant include
(305 Covered Bridge Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76108; 817-448-9509; 817-239-5020);
Sandra King (1501 Circle Drive, No. 110, Fort Worth, Texas 76119; 940-536-7503); B.
Makovy (1525 Arkansas Lane, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052; 972-237-8887); and Cari
Wyatt (1501 Texas Drive; Weatherford, Texas 76086-6311; 817-565-7748). Defendants
will testify the alleged sexual assault did not occur, can testify about
addiction to drugs and alcohol and his relationship with their
child, and Sandra King, B. Makovy, and Cari Wyatt have previously investigated Mr.
allegations and have concluded they were without merit or substance.
At this time, the Defendants do not know of any expert witnesses, with the possible
exception of the investigators.
Defendants are not aware of any such indemnity and insuring agreements.
Defendants are not aware of any such settlement agreement.
The investigators identified above may have obtained statements from witnesses.
However, if such statements exist, they are not in the possession of Defendants.
Not requested.
Defendants are not aware of any such medical records or bills.
Defendants are not aware of any person who may be designated as a responsible third
party at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
William H. Kincaid
Box 457; Sanger, Texas 76266
Email: whk4888@yahoo.com
Texas Bar No. 11431500
Attorney for Defendants Andersons
Exhibit "E"
NO. DC-15-07174
JOHN DOE |, Individually and as Next Friend of IN THE 44™ JUDICIAL
JOHN DOE II, a Minor,
Plaintiffs
xNV.
DISTRICT COURT OF
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C.
ANDERSON, Individually, LeVONNA C. ANDERSON,
Individually, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON,
Individually, RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO: Plaintiffs JOHN DOE | and JOHN DOE II, by and through their attorneys of record, JOHN D.
SLOAN, JR. and DOUGLAS W. LUKASIK, Sloan Matney, LLP, 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75219 via email to jsloan@sloanmatney.com and dlukasik@sloanmatney.com.
NOW COME ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, and DR. WILLIAM C.
ANDERSON, individually and doing business as THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR THE
GIFTED, TALENTED, AND CREATIVE, Defendants in the above styled and numbered legal cause
of action, and serve their Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production.
1. All documents that constitute or relate to any joint defense agreement or joint interest
agreement pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and requesting material that is work product of the attorneys involved
without being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants state they are not aware of
any documents.
All documents that constitute or relate to any insurance or indemnity agreements
pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit for the Anderson Defendants.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad.
Defendants further object to this request as requesting irrelevant information not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and
without waiving the aforesaid objections, Defendants have attached information
received from their insurance carrier.
All documents that constitute or relate to the hiring, credentials, employment,
evaluation, monitoring, review, discipline, or any other personnel matter of any
employees or contractors of The Anderson Private School during the relevant time
period, including a complete copy of his or her employment file, disciplinary file,
correspondences, or any other record maintained by The Anderson Private School.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and harassing. It asks for information protected by laws requiring
confidentiality, information protected by attorney-client privilege, or information
constituting attorney work product, and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of
The Anderson School and its employees. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid
objections, a copy of the School’s Operational Policies is attached.
All documents that relate to any investigation by The Anderson Private School of the
facts at issue in this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, vague,
unduly burdensome, harassing, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the
same, Defendants say they are aware of three investigations—two by the Texas
Department of Family and Protective Services and one by the Grand Prairie Police
Department—all of which were commenced as a result of the false and malicious
complaints filed by NM (alias John Doe |). Letters from the Texas Department
of Family and Protective Services stating that they found no evidence supporting
HER allegations are attached. The Grand Prairie Police Department gave notice by
phone that it found no evidence supporting (EEN allegations, but did not
send a document.
Any document, police report, note, memorandum, or correspondence relating to The
Anderson Private School’s communication with the Grand Prairie Police Department
regarding the occurrence.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad and
not being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject
to and without waiving said objections, Defendants have no such documents other than
as noted in 4, above.
A copy of any petition filed by or against Anderson Defendants in any court or
jurisdiction in the State of Texas.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants have none other
than the current suit, although Defendant ALEXANDER ANDERSON has received some
traffic citations for speeding.
All documents sent to, received from, or reviewed by any retained or non-retained
expert witness in this matter.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, and not calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. It seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery,
and any such information is protected by the attorney-client privilege, and may
constitute attorney work product. Subject to and without waiving said objections,
Defendants state they have not yet engaged any such experts and have no documents
responsive to this request with the possible exception of the letters referred to in 4,
above, which are attached.
8 Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other
communications You or your employees or contractors have had with Plaintiffs since the.
date of the occurrence,
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving said
objections, Defendants are aware of the text messages that are attached.
Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other
communications You or your employees or contractors had with RBION regarding the
field trip at RBION on the date of the occurrence.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, vague, and ambiguous. It seeks privileged information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and possibly
confidential information. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants
state they know of no such documents other than the emails and attachments that are
sent between the attorneys in this case, and possibly billings related to this case.
10 Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other
communications You or your employees or contractors have had with Ripley or RBION
since the date of the occurrence.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, vague, and ambiguous. It seeks privileged information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and possibly
confidential information. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants
state that the only documents they know about (other than the emails and attachments
that are sent between the attorneys in this case, and possibly billings related to this
case) are the emails that are attached.
11 A complete roster of all students of The Anderson Private School with contact
information (name, address and telephone numbers) for their parents.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and harassing. It asks for information protected by laws requiring
confidentiality, and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of The Anderson School
and its students. Defendants also object to providing this information because
HE (alias John Doe 1) has a history of abusing this information by contacting parents
and students and spreading false and malicious slander and libel. Defendants will be
filing suit against him in the near future, which will bring this issue directly before the
Court.
12 Any demand letters or complaints to The Anderson Private School alleging improper
treatment of a student.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and harassing. It asks for information protected by laws requiring
confidentiality, and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of The Anderson School
and its students. Subject to and without waiving the same, Defendants have no
documents responsive to this request except those from EE (alias John Doe
1).
Respectfully submitted,
fs
A
“
WILLIAM H. KINCAID
Box 457; Sanger, Texas 76266
Phone: 940-372-3598
Whk4888@yahoo.com
Attorney for Defendants WILLIAM C. ANDERSON,
LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, and
THE ANDERSON SCHOOL FOR THE GIFTED, TALENTED AND
CREATIVE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been emailed, faxed or
mailed to all parties of record, in compliance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, on this ZS day of August, 2015.
WILLIAM H. INCAID
Preview
FILED. DALLAS COUNTY 8/31/2015 2:43:41 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Cause No. DC-15-07174 JOHN Doe |, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT and as Next Friend of JOHN Doe II, a Minor, Plaintiffs, Vv. THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY 44™ JupIiciaL DistRICT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC. Defendants. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS John Doe I and John Doe II ("Plaintiffs"), file this Second Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and Strike Objections against The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson and Alexander A. Anderson ("Defendants"), and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS 1 On July 17, 2015 Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents on Defendants. See Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendants PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 1 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and email serving the discovery attached hereto as Exhibit “BM Defendants’ Responses were due no later than August 17, 2015. However, Defendants have cavalierly chosen to simply ignore the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, by refusing to respond to the discovery requests. 2. Despite this fact, Plaintiffs tried to work with Defendants to give them an extra week to produce the required information, but Defendants simply refused, and indicated they would respond on their own time table, even though the discovery contained only 12 requests, seeking information readily available to Defendants. See email correspondence between counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 3 Because Defendants have failed to timely respond to discovery, any potential objections to the requests are waived. 7exas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.2(e). 4 Moreover, Defendants have now responded to Plaintiffs’ Request for Disclosure. However, Defendants’ responses are wholly inadequate. See Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Disclosure attached hereto as Exhibit “D’. Defendants have failed to provide any substantive response regarding Rule 194.2(e). This case involves the sexual assault of a young boy by a teacher at his school while on a field trip at Ripley's Believe it or Not (“RBION"). At a minimum, Plaintiffs need to know the names of the people from The Anderson Private School (teachers, parents and PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 2 students) that were present at RBION on the day of the field trip. This is information that is readily available to Defendants, but not to Plaintiffs. One would also think that there are other employees at Defendant The Anderson Private School with knowledge of relevant facts that were not present at RBION, but Defendants failed to list anyone other than the parties to the suit. 5 Moreover, in response to Rule 194.2(g) regarding insurance agreements, Defendants simply say that they “are not aware of any such agreements.” This vague response needs clarification. Is there an insurance policy that may cover the claims in this action or not? Defendants act as if there might be one somewhere, but they just aren't aware of it. 6. Since Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion to Compel was filed, Defendants finally responded to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents. See Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. Despite serving their responses 11 days late, Defendants only add insult to injury by simply asserting baseless objections without supporting evidence of any kind, and by failing to produce the most basic information. Regardless of whether this Court allows Defendants to assert their objections well past the deadline, said objections are baseless and should be struck on their own lack of merit. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 3 7 As such, Plaintiffs request that this Court Order Defendants to immediately comply with the 7exas Rules of Civil Procedure, by fully and completely responding to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendants without objection, and to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ Request for Disclosure. Plaintiffs further seek any other relief that they may be entitled, both at law and in equity. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 4 Respectfully submitted, By: JOHN D. SLOAN, JR. a5 State Bar No.: 00792080 Douclas W. LUKASIK State Bar No. 24046326 SLOAN MATNEY, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave. Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.253.0101 (Sloan) 214.253.0103 (Lukasik) 214.237.5474 (Facsimile) jsloan@sloanmatney.com dlukasik@sloanmatney.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for Movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference at which there was a substantive discussion on every item presented to the Court in this motion and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented. 5 Certified to the 31st day of August, 2015 by: John D. Sloan, Jr. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on the 31st day of August, 2015 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via e-service and email on: S. Todd Parks Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. 10440 North Central Expressway Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75231 todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com William H. Kincaid Kincaid Legal P.O. Box 457 Sanger, Texas 76266 whk4888@yahoo.com Greg Westfall The Westfall Firm 4200 W. Vickery Blvd., 2"4 Floor Fort Worth, Texas 76107 greg @westfallfirm.com 5 John D. Sloan, Jr. 4847-1991-5559, v. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE OBJECTIONS Page 6 Exhibit "A" Cause No. DC-15-07174 JOHN Doe I, Individually IN THE DISTRICT CouRT and as Next Friend of JoHN Doe II, a Minor, Plaintiffs, v. THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY 44™ Jupictat DistRIcT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC. Defendants. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS To Anderson Defendants by and through their counsel Greg Westfall, The Westfall gnd Firm 4200 W. Vickery Blvd. Floor, Fort Worth, Texas 76107. greg@westfallfirm.com Pursuant to Rule 196.1 of the Texas RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, individually and Alexander A. Anderson, individually (referred to collectively herein as the “Anderson Defendants") respond to the following Requests for Production PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 1 and serve such responses upon the undersigned attorneys on or before thirty (30) days after service of these Requests. Respectfully submitted, By: JOHN D. SLOAN, JR. a State Bar No.: 00792080 Doucas W. LUKASIK State Bar No. 24046326 SLOAN MATNEY, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave. Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.253.0101 (Sloan) 214.253.0103 (Lukasik) 214.237.5474 Fax jsloan@sloanmatney.com dlukasik@sloanmatney.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 17th day of July, 2015 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via email on: S. Todd Parks Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P 10440 North Central Expressway Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500, Dallas, Texas 75231. todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com Greg Westfall The Westfall Firm 4200 W. Vickery Blvd., 2"4 Floor Fort Worth, Texas 76107 greg@westfallfirm.com John D. Sloan, Jr. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS. Page 3 INSTRUCTIONS 1 To the fullest extent permitted by the Texas RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, these requests for documents are intended to be continuing in nature. You are requested and required to supplement your responses when appropriate or necessary to make them correct and complete. 2. If You contend that You may partially or entirely withhold a requested document or category of documents because of a rule, privilege, immunity, or other reason, for each document partially or entirely withheld, identify the document and state the factual basis on which You claim the privilege or immunity. 3 If Your refusal to produce any document is based upon a claim that the document is subject to a privilege, state the nature of the claim of privilege, identify the person upon whose behalf such privilege is claimed, and identify each person who has revised the document. 4 In the event that any document requested has been lost, deleted or otherwise destroyed, please identify such document by author(s), addressee(s), date, subject matter, number of pages, and attachments or appendices, identify all persons to whom such document was distributed, shown or explained, identify all persons who had custody of each such document, state the date of loss, deletion or destruction, and identify the person responsible for the loss, deletion or destruction. 5 Each Request is to be read, construed and responded to separately and independently without reference to or being limited by any other Request unless otherwise noted. 6. In answering these Requests, You are required to furnish all information available to You, including information in the possession, custody or control of Your attorneys, agents and all other persons acting on Your behalf, and not merely such information known to You or of Your own personal knowledge. If You cannot answer any of these Requests in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, You are required to so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying Your inability to answer the remainder, stating what information or knowledge You have concerning the unanswered portions and why You are unable to answer the unanswered portions. 7. The terms “AND” and “OR" are to be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively, whichever is appropriate, so as to bring within the scope of these PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 4 Requests any information or documents that might otherwise be considered beyond its scope. 8. The singular form of a word is to be interpreted as plural and the plural form of a word shall be interpreted as singular, whichever is appropriate, so as to bring within the scope of these Requests any information or documents that might otherwise be considered beyond its scope. DEFINITIONS 1 “Plaintiffs” refers to John Doe I, individually and as next friend of John Doe II, a minor, including, without limitation, their agents, attorneys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on their behalf.’ 2. “Father” refers to John Doe I, including, without limitation, his agents, attorneys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on his behalf. 3 “Victim” refers to John Doe II, a minor, including, without limitation, his agents, attorneys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on his behalf. 4. “Defendants” refers to Defendants The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, Alexander A. Anderson, Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., and Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc., as well as their attorneys, agents and employees. 5. “Ripley” refers to Ripley Entertainment, Inc., including, without limitation, its agents, attorneys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on its behalf. ’ The identities of John Doe I and John Doe II will be made known to Defendants, but as required and permitted by law to protect the anonymity of John Doe II, who is a minor sexual assault victim, the pseudonyms for these individuals are being used herein. Plaintiffs have or will propose and request that the Court enter a Protective Order to order, inter alia, (1) that all discovery requests and responses are confidential between the parties and not to be used for any other purpose other than this litigation thereby permitting free discovery without the need of using pseudonyms or redaction; (2) that prior to the use or filing of any discovery request or response with the Court and thereby placing the documents in the open record, that the parties be required to redact identifying information; and (3) that all pleadings and other documents created to be filed only utilize the pseudonyms for Plaintiffs. However, until such time as the Court has entered that Order, these Requests will refer to the pseudonyms of Plaintiffs to affect the purposes of anonymity. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 5 6 The term “communication” means the transmission, sending and/or receipt of information of any kind by or through any means including, but not limited to, speech writings, language (machine, foreign or otherwise), computer electronics of any kind (e.g. e-mail), videotape, photographs, graphs, symbols, signs, floppy disks, CD-ROM discs, memory sticks, thumb drives, smart phone, text message, telecommunication, cell phone, telephone, teletype, facsimile, telegram, microfilm, microfiche, photographic film of all type and other media of any kind. The term “communication” also includes, without limitation, all records, inquiries, discussions, conversations, explanations, negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, notices, requests, responses, demands, complaints, publicity or trade releases and statements of any kind. 7 “Possession” means any information or documents and electronic data within Your possession, custody or control, including Your attorneys, representatives, accountants, or any other person acting or purporting to act on Your behalf or in concert with You. This term also includes any temporary placing of possession, custody or control of information or documents in the custody of any third party by any of the foregoing persons. 8. As used herein the term, “document” or “documents” means any original or copy, including each non-identical copy, whether non-identical because of alteration, attachments, blanks, comments, notes, deletions, underlying or otherwise, of any written record, graphic material, or other tangible evidence or thing, however, described or titled, whether a letter, memorandum, report, affidavit, personal and/or handwritten note, tape recording, video, film, telegram, fax, transcript, purchase order, catalogue, brochure, diary, calendar, inter-office or intra-office communication, statement, investigative report, announcement, deposition, answers to questions, pleading, judgment, newspaper article, photograph, motion picture and any carbon or photographic copies of any such material. As used herein, the term “document” is also intended to include electronically stored information, including electronically generated and stored data files, computer files, e-mails, email attachments, text messages, archived voicemail, and data storage devices such as floppy discs, and hard discs. The term “document” is further intended to include any computer records reflecting earlier drafts, revisions, addenda, memorandums and the like with regard to any responsive document. 9 All documents or communications that “relate to" a given subject means all documents or communications that constitute, contain, embody, comprise, reflect, identify, state, refer to, deal with, comment on, respond to, describe, analyze, or are in PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 6 any way pertinent to that subject including, without limitation, documents concerning the presentation of other documents. 10. “You" and/or “Your” refer to the responding party, including, without limitation, all of its predecessors, successors, parent and affiliate entities, agents, attorneys, accountants, investment bankers, employees, representatives and all other persons who act on responding party's behalf. 11. “Any” refers to any and all documents, persons, or entities inclusively, not the option of responding as to some but not to others. 12. The term “conversation” includes all verbal, written, or electronic communications that You made, sent or received. 13. The term “Petition” means Plaintiffs’ Original Petition filed in this action and any subsequent amendments and supplements thereto. 14, The term “this Lawsuit” means Cause No. DC-15-07174, styled John Doe Individually and as Next Friend of John Doe I, a minor, v. The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, Alexander A. Anderson, Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc, and Jim Pattison U.S.A, Inc, pending in the 44" Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. 15. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, federations or any other kind of entity. 16. “Personal e-mail account” means any e-mail account used by You or any of your employees to send or receive e-mail communications that are relevant to the facts made this basis of this Lawsuit. 17. As used in these requests, the terms “occurrence,” “day of the occurrence” or “date of the occurrence” mean the events made the basis of this suit, which occurred on October 31, 2014, at Ripley's Believe It Or Not, in Grand Prairie, Texas, including the cause, however remote, of such event in which event has made the basis of this suit. 18. “RBION" means the Ripley's Believe It Or Not at 601 E. Palace Pkwy, Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 where the occurrence took place. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 7 19. “The Anderson Private School” includes any employees, representatives, contractors, agents, predecessors, successors and teachers of Defendant The Anderson Private School. PRIVILEGED OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1 If any document requested is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege or work product, or otherwise, You are requested to submit in lieu of any such information a written statement no later than the date of the commencement of the document production: a) identifying the person or persons who prepared or authored the document, and, if applicable, the person or persons to whom the document was sent or shown; b) specifying the date on which the document was prepared or transmitted; ¢) identifying the subject matter of the document; qd)describing the nature of the document (e.g., letter, email, text message, memorandum, etc.); e) stating the identity of each person who had access to, custody of, and who received a copy of the document; identifying the present custodian; 9) stating the reason why the document was not produced; and h) stating why the document is claimed to be privileged or to constitute work product. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for all documents to be produced in response to the following document requests is January 1, 2009 to the present. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 8 COMPUTER-BASED INFORMATION 1 All documents and their metadata portrayed on electronic or electro-magnetic media shall be produced in the form or forms in which the documents are stored in the ordinary course of business, retaining all reasonably accessible metadata, but so as to be in a reasonably usable form enabling, through reasonably modest effort, the Requesting Party to fairly, accurately and completely access, search, and display and comprehend the documents’ contents. 2. All documents and their metadata that have been fairly and accurately portrayed within a commercially available document review database including but not limited to litigation support databases shall be produced within that database or in a format that can be directly loaded into such database. Even after producing documents in the document review database format, the documents’ originals or their fair and accurate representations shall be preserved as they exist in the ordinary course of business. 3 Documents and their metadata portrayed in the ordinary course of business within commercial, off-the-shelf e-mail systems including Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes, or IBM Groupwise shall be produced in their native format, or in alternative readily accessible industry-standard formats that fairly, accurately and completely represent such documents. 4. Documents and their metadata portrayed in structured electronic databases or files (excluding e-mail) shall be produced in a format that enables programmatic management of those documents and their importation into a database. The documents must be accompanied with reasonably detailed, clear and focused documentation explaining the documents’ content and format including but not limited to a data dictionary and data diagrams. Some acceptable formats include: (a) XML format file(s) but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s) and field level schemas; (b) Microsoft SQL database(s) but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s) and field level schemas; (c) Access database(s) but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s), and fields level schemas; (d) fixed or variable length ASCII delimited files but only if provided with definitive file(s), tables(s) and field level schemas. 5 Documents and their metadata portrayed in unstructured files generated by commercially available software system excluding e-mails and structured electronic databases such as word processing, spreadsheet, image files, text files shall be produced as those files were stored in the ordinary course of business. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 9 6. Documents and their metadata portrayed on paper or in an industry-standard image format shall be produced in image format (200 - 300 bpi in group 3 TIF format or in TIF format). In addition, the relationships among the images shall be described with respect to the how the images relate to one another (as to document and attachment boundaries, folder boundaries, and other groupings) using industry-standard or other reasonably usable electronic data load files which shall be accompanied with reasonably detailed, clear and focused documentation explaining the load files’ content. In addition, the text of the documents generated at the time the document or subsequently generated through industry-standard Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology shall be produced in a format that reasonably usable. In addition, all available descriptions of the documents’ properties shall be produced in a reasonably accessible data description file along with reasonably detailed, clear and focused documentation explaining such file's contents. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 10 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTIO! All documents that constitute or relate to any joint defense agreement or joint interest agreement pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit. All documents that constitute or relate to any insurance or indemnity agreements pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit for the Anderson Defendants. All documents that constitute or relate to the hiring, credentials, employment, evaluation, monitoring, review, discipline, or any other personnel matter of any employees or contractors of The Anderson Private School during the relevant time period, including a complete copy of his or her employment file, disciplinary file, correspondences, or any other record maintained by The Anderson Private School. All documents that relate to any investigation by The Anderson Private School of the facts at issue in this Lawsuit. Any document, police report, note, memorandum, or correspondence relating to The Anderson Private School's communication with the Grand Prairie Police Department regarding the occurrence. A copy of any petition filed by or against Anderson Defendants in any court or jurisdiction in the State of Texas. All documents sent to, received from, or reviewed by any retained or non-retained expert witness in this matter. Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other communications You or your employees or contractors have had with Plaintiffs since the date of the occurrence. Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other communications You or your employees or contractors had with RBION regarding the field trip at RBION on the date of the occurrence. 10. Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other communications You or your employees or contractors have had with Ripley or RBION since the date of the occurrence. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 11 11 A complete roster of all students of The Anderson Private School with contact information (name, address and telephone numbers) for their parents. 12. Any demand letters or complaints to The Anderson Private School alleging improper treatment of a student. 4841-3442-0005, v. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS Page 12 Exhibit "B" John Sloan Ss From: John Sloan Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 5:08 PM To: greg @westfallfirm.com; ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com; Todd.Parks@wbclawfirm.com Ce: Doug Lukasik Subject: Doe v. Anderson, et al Attachments: 150717 Pls 1st RFP to Andersons-signed.pdf; 150717 Anderson Orig Answer.pdf; 150713 Ripley's Orginal Answer.pdf Counsel: Please see attached discovery to Anderson Defendants in this matter. | have also attached copies of each Defendant's Answers, so everyone has a complete file. John D. Sloan, Jr. Sloan Matney, LLP Two Turtle Creek 3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.253.0101 (0.) 214.616.3724 (c.) jsloan@sloanmatney.com @ SloanMatney Exhibit "C" John Sloan From: John Sloan Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:30 AM To: Bill Kincaid Cc: greg @westfallfirm.com; Anderson Private School Subject: RE: Doe v. Anderson, et al Attachments: Doe v. Anderson, et al | would think you would just ask your co-counsel for it. Nevertheless, the discovery and proof of service is attached. All objections are now waived. If you agree to provide all responsive documents and electronic data, without objection, by Monday, August 24, 2015, | will not file a Motion to Compel. Upon review, you will see that the requests were not objectionable, so your clients have not been harmed as a result of their late responses. Please confirm your agreement to Monday's production by noon today, or | will file a Motion to Compel, and note your opposition. John D. Sloan, Jr. Sloan Matney, LLP Two Turtle Creek 3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.253.0101 (0.) 214.616.3724 (c.) jsloan@sloanmatney.com @® SloanMatney From: Bill Kincaid whka} 8: ho com. Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:11 PM To: John Sloan Cc: greq@westfallfirm.com; Anderson Private School Subject: Re: Doe v. Anderson, et al Please send me a copy of the Request for Production that you say was due yesterday, since this is the first I've heard about it. Thank you, William H. Kincaid On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:52 PM, John Sloan wrote: Gentlemen: Your clients’ Responses to Request for Production were due yesterday. | would like to set up a Dropbox account for sharing of the native files and pdfs. Please let me know if you will be prepared to produce the responsive documents and electronic data by tomorrow. Thank you. John D. Sloan, Jr. Sloan Matney, LLP Two Turtle Creek 3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.253.0101 (0.) 214.616.3724 (c.) jsloan@sloanmatney.com @® SloanMatney Exhibit "D" NO. DC-15-07174 JOHN DOE |, Individually and as Next Friend of IN THE 44™ JUDICIAL JOHN DOE II, a Minor, Plaintiffs V. DISTRICT COURT OF THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, Individually, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, Individually, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, Individually, RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC., Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Defendants Alexander A. Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson, and Dr. William C. Anderson, individually and doing business as The Anderson Private School for the Gifted, Talented, and Creative, give the following responses to the Request for Disclosure contained in the Original Petition heretofore filed by John Doe | and John Doe Il: A. The Anderson Private School for the Gifted, Talented, and Creative, Dr. William C. Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson, Alexander A. Anderson, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc., (alias John Doe !), and {alias John Doe Il). Defendants are not aware of any other potential parties at this time. Plaintiffs have filed a frivolous lawsuit alleging a sexual assault that did not occur. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, while Defendants deny the material allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. Defendants have not yet countersued, although they have sent a statutory demand letter to Plaintiffs. Defendants plan to amend this portion of their Response after such countersuit is filed. Plaintiffs already have the telephone numbers and addresses for the parties [The Anderson Private School for the Gifted, Talented, and Creative, Dr. William C. Anderson, LeVonna C. Anderson, Alexander A. Anderson, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc., (alias John Doe 1), and (alias John Doe !/)}. Others having knowledge of facts that may be relevant include (305 Covered Bridge Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76108; 817-448-9509; 817-239-5020); Sandra King (1501 Circle Drive, No. 110, Fort Worth, Texas 76119; 940-536-7503); B. Makovy (1525 Arkansas Lane, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052; 972-237-8887); and Cari Wyatt (1501 Texas Drive; Weatherford, Texas 76086-6311; 817-565-7748). Defendants will testify the alleged sexual assault did not occur, can testify about addiction to drugs and alcohol and his relationship with their child, and Sandra King, B. Makovy, and Cari Wyatt have previously investigated Mr. allegations and have concluded they were without merit or substance. At this time, the Defendants do not know of any expert witnesses, with the possible exception of the investigators. Defendants are not aware of any such indemnity and insuring agreements. Defendants are not aware of any such settlement agreement. The investigators identified above may have obtained statements from witnesses. However, if such statements exist, they are not in the possession of Defendants. Not requested. Defendants are not aware of any such medical records or bills. Defendants are not aware of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party at this time. Respectfully submitted, William H. Kincaid Box 457; Sanger, Texas 76266 Email: whk4888@yahoo.com Texas Bar No. 11431500 Attorney for Defendants Andersons Exhibit "E" NO. DC-15-07174 JOHN DOE |, Individually and as Next Friend of IN THE 44™ JUDICIAL JOHN DOE II, a Minor, Plaintiffs xNV. DISTRICT COURT OF THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, Individually, LeVONNA C. ANDERSON, Individually, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, Individually, RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC., Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Plaintiffs JOHN DOE | and JOHN DOE II, by and through their attorneys of record, JOHN D. SLOAN, JR. and DOUGLAS W. LUKASIK, Sloan Matney, LLP, 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75219 via email to jsloan@sloanmatney.com and dlukasik@sloanmatney.com. NOW COME ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, and DR. WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, individually and doing business as THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR THE GIFTED, TALENTED, AND CREATIVE, Defendants in the above styled and numbered legal cause of action, and serve their Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production. 1. All documents that constitute or relate to any joint defense agreement or joint interest agreement pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, and requesting material that is work product of the attorneys involved without being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants state they are not aware of any documents. All documents that constitute or relate to any insurance or indemnity agreements pertaining in any way to Plaintiffs or this Lawsuit for the Anderson Defendants. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad. Defendants further object to this request as requesting irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid objections, Defendants have attached information received from their insurance carrier. All documents that constitute or relate to the hiring, credentials, employment, evaluation, monitoring, review, discipline, or any other personnel matter of any employees or contractors of The Anderson Private School during the relevant time period, including a complete copy of his or her employment file, disciplinary file, correspondences, or any other record maintained by The Anderson Private School. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. It asks for information protected by laws requiring confidentiality, information protected by attorney-client privilege, or information constituting attorney work product, and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of The Anderson School and its employees. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid objections, a copy of the School’s Operational Policies is attached. All documents that relate to any investigation by The Anderson Private School of the facts at issue in this Lawsuit. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the same, Defendants say they are aware of three investigations—two by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and one by the Grand Prairie Police Department—all of which were commenced as a result of the false and malicious complaints filed by NM (alias John Doe |). Letters from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services stating that they found no evidence supporting HER allegations are attached. The Grand Prairie Police Department gave notice by phone that it found no evidence supporting (EEN allegations, but did not send a document. Any document, police report, note, memorandum, or correspondence relating to The Anderson Private School’s communication with the Grand Prairie Police Department regarding the occurrence. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad and not being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants have no such documents other than as noted in 4, above. A copy of any petition filed by or against Anderson Defendants in any court or jurisdiction in the State of Texas. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants have none other than the current suit, although Defendant ALEXANDER ANDERSON has received some traffic citations for speeding. All documents sent to, received from, or reviewed by any retained or non-retained expert witness in this matter. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery, and any such information is protected by the attorney-client privilege, and may constitute attorney work product. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants state they have not yet engaged any such experts and have no documents responsive to this request with the possible exception of the letters referred to in 4, above, which are attached. 8 Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other communications You or your employees or contractors have had with Plaintiffs since the. date of the occurrence, RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants are aware of the text messages that are attached. Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other communications You or your employees or contractors had with RBION regarding the field trip at RBION on the date of the occurrence. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, and ambiguous. It seeks privileged information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and possibly confidential information. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants state they know of no such documents other than the emails and attachments that are sent between the attorneys in this case, and possibly billings related to this case. 10 Any documents, notes or other memorandum evidencing any conversations or other communications You or your employees or contractors have had with Ripley or RBION since the date of the occurrence. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, and ambiguous. It seeks privileged information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and possibly confidential information. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendants state that the only documents they know about (other than the emails and attachments that are sent between the attorneys in this case, and possibly billings related to this case) are the emails that are attached. 11 A complete roster of all students of The Anderson Private School with contact information (name, address and telephone numbers) for their parents. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. It asks for information protected by laws requiring confidentiality, and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of The Anderson School and its students. Defendants also object to providing this information because HE (alias John Doe 1) has a history of abusing this information by contacting parents and students and spreading false and malicious slander and libel. Defendants will be filing suit against him in the near future, which will bring this issue directly before the Court. 12 Any demand letters or complaints to The Anderson Private School alleging improper treatment of a student. RESPONSE: OBJECTION: Defendants object to this request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. It asks for information protected by laws requiring confidentiality, and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of The Anderson School and its students. Subject to and without waiving the same, Defendants have no documents responsive to this request except those from EE (alias John Doe 1). Respectfully submitted, fs A “ WILLIAM H. KINCAID Box 457; Sanger, Texas 76266 Phone: 940-372-3598 Whk4888@yahoo.com Attorney for Defendants WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, and THE ANDERSON SCHOOL FOR THE GIFTED, TALENTED AND CREATIVE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been emailed, faxed or mailed to all parties of record, in compliance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this ZS day of August, 2015. WILLIAM H. INCAID