Preview
I
DALLAS COUNTY
12/9/2015 2:15:15 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174
JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NEXT FRIEND TO JOHN DOE II, A MINOR
Plaintiffs
VS.
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL,
WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
LEVONNA Cc ANDERSON,
INDIVIDUALLY, “ ALEXANDER A
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY
ENTERTAINMENT, _ INC., and JIM
PATTISON U.S.A., INC. 44TH-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON’ S
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTFF JOHN DOE I
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Defendant, Alexander A. Anderson (Defendant), and files this Motion to
Compel against Plaintiff John Doe I (Plaintiff), and respectfully shows the Court:
Relevant Procedural and Factual History
1 The Court signed an Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) scheduling
order on August 3, 2015 that states each party shall have 50 interrogatories. See Agreed
Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) {| 4 (on file with the Court). The On August 17, 2015 the
patties filed a Rule 11 Agreement amending portions of the Court’s Uniform Order. Notably,
the parties’ Rule 11 Agreement does not in any way change or limit the mmber of
interrogatories allowed
by each party in the Agreed Uniform Scheduling
Order (Level 3).
2. On October 26, 2015 Defendant served on Plaintiff “Defendant Alexander A.
Andersons First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First Requests for
Admission” (Discovery Requests). See Ex. 1. Plaintiff responded to the Discovery Requests
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 1 of 9
with meritless objections. See Ex. 2, Plaintiff John Doe I’s Answers, Responses and Objections
to AlexanderA. Anderson’s First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First
Requests for Admission (Plaintiff's Response). After conferencing on an earlier draft of this
Motion that contained additional items not presented herein, Plaintiff provided his First
Supplemental Answers, Responses and Objections upon which this Motion as filed is based. See
Ex. 3.
3. Additionally, along with making meritless formulaic objections and in direct
contravention with the miles of civil procedure which requires production of responsive
documents with discovery responses, Plaintiff failed to produce any responsive documents. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(b) & cmt. 2 (noting
that party has an obligationto produce any items to the
extent that it does not object); Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3(a) (stating that a party is required to produce
all items in their possession, custody or control).
4. At issue in this Motion to Compel are Requests for Production numbers 1 through.
55, Interrogatories numbers 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23; and Request
for Admission
numbers 13 (p.28), 13? (p.33), and 14.
Argument and Authorities?
5. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has wholly failed to verify his responses to
Defendant’ s interrogatories as required
by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.2(d) & cmt. 2.
6. Further, Plaintiff, without producing a single responsive document or item and in
response has stated instead that “Plaintiff will present all such evidence
at trial . . .” and generally
* Defendant moves to compel to the extent that Plaintiff relies on the privileges
asserted under Texas
Rules of Evidence 509 and 510.
? Requests for Admission were erroneously duplicated in Defendant’s Discovery Requests, therefore a
reference in Plaintiff’ s Response is provided.
This section is not meant to enumerate the entirety of Plaintiffs impermissible and obstructive
responses, it is merely meant to highlight the more egregious nonresponsive items.
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 2 of 9
that Plaintiff “will produce” responsive documents. See eg., Ex. 2. resp. to Interrogatory
number
9 and nearly all responsesto Defendant’s
Requests for Production. However, the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure require that all available responsive documents in the party’s actual or
constructive possession be provided with a party’s discovery responses. See e.g., Tex. R. Civ. P.
193.1, 193.2(b), 196.3(a). And, that if documents are not produced, that the responding party
state a specific time and place for production. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that he, and not the rules,
will dictate when his responses will be forthcoming, up to and including his intent to withhold
responsive information until trial. In a case such as this, where after six months the Plaintiffs
have not supported their allegations with any facts’ and those allegations have been investigated
and dismissed by two independent investigative agencies, Plaintiff's position on his intent to
withhold information, failure to produce validly requested information appropriately related to
deciphering the factual basis of the Plaintiffs’ claims, is highly prejudicial to Defendant's ability
to defend against what are as of this filing, not only wholly unsubstantiated claims but claims
investigated
and determined to be unfounded. See Ex. A to Def.’s Discovery Requests in Ex. 1
hereto, Grand Prairie Police Department Report (stating John Doe I’s claims were “unfounded”);
Ex. 4, Correspondence and Report of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
(stating
that Alexander A. Anderson
had “no role” and that no child was exploited, abusedor
neglected in Defendants’ care).
7. Further, the Court’s Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) clearly states
that each party shall have fifty (50) interrogatories. See Agreed Uniform Scheduling
Order
(Level 3) 14. Despite this clear language, Plaintiff, relying generally on the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure
with no specific
cite thereto, beginning
with his response to Defendant’s Request for
4 See Defendants’ Special Exceptions (on file with the Court).
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page
3 of 9
Intenogatory number 16 and continuing through interrogatory number 23, objects asserting that
Defendant
has exceeded his allotted number of interrogatories and discreet subparts. See Ex. 2.
Not only is Plaintiff's objection based on excessive requests unsupported by citation to any
specific authority, it is in direct contradiction to the clear language of the Court’s Order allowing
fifty (50) interrogatories to each party. Further, reviewing Defendant’ s interrogatories numbered
1 through 15 none of those interrogatories can be construed to contain more than a single
interrogatory and allowable supporting information as recognized by the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 190 cmt. 3 (identifying
a discreet subpart as information
that is
not logically or factually related to the primary interogatory).
8. Plaintiff’ s remaining objections to Defendant’ s interrogatories are meritless, form
objections intended solely to prevent Defendant's from obtaining any detail about the Plaintiffs’
vague, unsubstantiated allegation of sexual abuse. Despite knowing that two independent
agencies investigated and dismissed Plaintiff John Doe I’s claims that Defendant Alexander A.
Anderson sexually abused John Doe II, John Doe I filed the present lawsuit. See Exs. C, D. To
date, nearly six months into the lawsuit within which Plaintiffs have still not provided any factual
basis for their claims, John Doe I now takes the position that information about the factual basis
or persons with potential information about the factual basis of his claims are not proper subjects
of discovery. In example, (1) in his response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff takes
the position that a request for information about persons with an ability to observe, work with or
communicate with John Doe II is overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, not relevant, would
not lead to admissible evidence, and is somehow vague or confusing; (2) in his response to
Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff makes similar form objections to Defendant’s request
for information about persons with whom John Doe I has discussed the allegations that serve as
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 4 of 9
the basis
for all of his claims, and (3) in his responseto Defendant’s Interrogatory number 3,
Plaintiff goes so far as to assert physician/patient privilege with respect to his communications
regarding
the abuse with John Doe II’s birth mother, Charlotte Ice, and others. See Ex. 2.
9. Even if such privilege applied, which it does not because Plaintiffs waived such
privilege by relying on John Doe II’s mental and physical condition for their claims, it is highly
unlikely that all communications with the parties alleged to enjoy the asserted privilege would, in
fact, qualify for that privilege—moreover, Plaintiff did not produce any privilege log with his
responses. See Tex. R. Evid. 509(e)(4), 510(d)(5); Ex. 1. Moreover, to the degree that the
records sought are medical or other records about John Doe II, Plaintiff’s son, Plaintiff, as John
Doe II’s parent, has superior right to those records over any third-party holding them and as such
is required to produce them as those records are within John Doe I's possession, custody and
control.
10. Plaintiff has lodged similar form objections to requests for information about John
Doe II's prior schools and why John Doe II no longer attends those schools (Defendant’s
Intenogatories
number 6 and 7, both at the very least relevant to determining any past history of
allegations of abuse by the plaintiffs); a request for the list of medical tests that confirm that John
Doe II was sexually abused on October 31, 2014 (Defendant's Interrogatory number 10, which
Plaintiff somehow feels is overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing); and requests for
information related to or support Plaintiffs’ own allegations (see, in example, responses to
Defendant’s requests for production numbers 12 through 19, 46, 51, and 52 and interrogatory
number 14).
11. Plaintiff's reliance on Loftin v. Martin as precluding Defendant’s contention
discovery in this matteris misplaced. See generally, Ex. B. Loftin stands for the proposition that
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 5 of 9
a requesting party cannot simply request all evidence that support the responding party’s
allegations as a whole. See Loftinv. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989), disapproved of
on other grounds by Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The
Court’s main complaint was that the request in Loftin lacked specificity, and
as such, was vague,
broad
and unclear. See id. at 148. The Court in Loftin focused on the fact that the request did not
identify any particular class or type of documents. Id. Subsequent
to Loftin, Courts
have applied
Loftin to allow discovery of documents related to specific contentions or items at issue in the
case
at bar.
12. In example, in Chamberlainv. Cherry, the Amarillo Court of Appeals, discussing
Loftin, concluded that a request for particular classes or types of documents
was permissible. 818
S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, no pet.) (holding that a request for production of
“any and all leases or rental agreements, deposit agreements, and related documents conceming
or pertaining to all or part of the property subject of this suit for the period since July 31, 1989”
‘was within the bounds of acceptable discovery ). Likewise, in In re Waste Mgnt. of Tex, Inc.,
the Texarkana Court of Appeals distinguished the generic request in Loftin—“all evidence that
supports Lumbermens’ allegations’—and allowed as propedy propounded, requests for
production information that were namowly tailored to a specific aspect, item, or allegation at
issue in the lawsuit. 392 S.W.3d 861, 872 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.). Here the
objectedto requests within which Plaintiff assets Loftin in support of his objection are, unlike the
general request rejected in Loftin, all narrowly tailored by time, subject matter, and categoryof
documents sought. Further, all are directly related to an issue in contention in this case.
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page
6 of 9
13. Moreover, to the degree that Plaintiff complains that any request violates the
attomey-client or “investigative” privilege, as noted above, he has not provided any privilege
log.
14. Inhis responses, Plaintiff asserts that he may designate several fact witnesses as
nor-retained experts. To the degree that Plaintiff intends to do so, because he has not yet
asserted any such designation, for the purposes of Defendant's discovery and Plaintiff’s
responses, those persons are strictly fact witnesses and there are no expert-based restrictions or
limitations on Defendant's inquiries. Further, even if Plaintiff were to designate those persons
identified in its Discovery Responses as non-retained experts, the knowledge of the facts and
events of any of those parties material to the lawsuit are discoverable. See Axelson, Inc. v.
Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. 1990) (“The factual knowledge and opinions acquired by
an individual who is an expert and an active participant in the events material to the lawsuit are
discoverable. This information is not shielded from discovery by merely changing the
designation of a person with knowledge of relevant facts to a ‘consulting-only expert.’”); In re
Harvest Cmtys. of Houston, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 343, 348 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet.
denied) (recognizing non-retained experts can testify about what they saw and did).
15. And, finally
with respect to Defendant’ s request for the Halloween costume wom.
by John Doe II on the date of the alleged assault, Plaintiffs impermissibly attemptto make such
production conditional upon Defendant providing the “exact reasons for the Request.” See Ex. 2
p.48 (response to Defendant’s Request for Production number 53). This is not a valid objection
and Plaintiff is in no position to mandate that Defendant provide any further information beyond
his properly lodged and appropriately tailored request.
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 7 of 9
PRAYER
Accordingly, Defendants request that this Court Order Defendant to comply with the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, by fully and completely responding to the Defendant's
Discovery Requests and requiring Plaintiff to provide the required verification to the
interrogatories contained therein. Defendant
further prays for any and all relief
to which they
shows themselves entitled, whether pleaded or unplead.
Respectfully Submitted,
By /s/ Robert Hammer
Robert W. Hammer
State Bar No.: 08854780
William H. Kincaid
State Bar No.: 11431500
ROBERT W. HAMMER
300 Legacy Downs Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76126
Telephone 817/ 332-8266
Telefax 817/ 332-8708
robert@rhammernlaw.com.
AND
WILLIAM H. KINCAID
Box 457
Sanger, Texas 76266
Telephone 940/372-3598
whk4888@yahoo.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DFENDANTS
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL,
WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LeVONNA C.
ANDERSON, and ALEXANDER A.
ANDERSON
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page
8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that on December 3rd, 2015, I conducted
a conference with Plaintiff
John Doe
T’s counsel and had substantive discussions on the items presented to the Court in this motion
and that despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve the matters presented.
By /s/ Robert Hammer
Robert W. Hammer
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on each attomey of record.
or party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 9th day of December,
2015, as follows:
John D. Sloan, Jr.
Douglas W. Lukasik
SLOAN MATNEY, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1200
Dallas, Texas 75219
jsloan@sloanmatney.com.
dlukasik@sloanmatney.com
(f) 214-237-5474
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
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.
tifications@whbclawfirm.com
(f) 214-760-1670
By /s/ Robert Hammer
Robert W. Hammer
Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page
9 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174
JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NEXT FRIEND TO JOHN DOE II, A MINOR
Plaintiffs
VS.
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL,
WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
LEVONNA Cc ANDERSON,
INDIVIDUALLY, “ALEXANDER A
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY
ENTERTAINMENT, _ INC., and JIM
PATTISON U.S.A., INC. 44TH-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
TO PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE I
To: Plaintiff J ohn Doe I by and through his counsel John D. Sloan,Jr. and DouglasW.
Lukasik, SLOAN MATNEY, LLP, 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1200, Dallas, Texas 75219,
jsloan@sloannatney.com, dlukasik@sloanmatney.com, (f) 214-237-5474.
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196, 197 and 198, Defendant Alex Alexander
requests that Plaintiff John Doe I respond to the following Intemogatories and Requests for
Production and serve such response upon Robert W. Hammer, 300 Legacy Downs Drive, Fort
Worth, Texas 76126, robert@rhammenaw.com; Telefax 817/ 332-8708, on or before thirty (30)
days after service of these requests.
Respectfully Submitted,
By /s/ Robert Hammer
Robert W. Hammer
State Bar No.: 08854780
William H. Kincaid
State Bar No.: 11431500
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 1 of 23
ROBERT W. HAMMER
300 Legacy Downs Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76126
Telephone 817/ 332-8266
Telefax 817/ 332-8708
robert@rhammerlaw.com.
AND
WILLIAM H. KINCAID
Box 457
Sanger, Texas 76266
Telephone 940/ 372-3598
whk4888@yahoo.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DFENDANTS
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL,
WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LeVONNA C
ANDERSON, and ALEXANDER A
ANDERSON
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 2 of 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and conect copy of the above was served on each attomey of record.
orparty in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 26th day of October,
2015, as follows:
John D. Sloan, Jr.
Douglas W. Lukasik
SLOAN MATNEY, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1200
Dallas, Texas 75219
jsloan@sloanmatney.com.
dlukasik@sloanmatney.com
(f) 214-237-5474
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
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.
tifications@whbclawfirm.com
(f) 214-760-1670
By /s/ Robert Hammer
Robert W. Hammer
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 3 of 23
I INSTRUCTIONS
1 To the fullest extent permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, these
interrogatories and requests for production are intended to be continuing in nabire. You are
requested and required to supplement your responses when appropriate or necessary to make
them correct and complete.
2. Tf You contend that Y ou may partially or entirely withhold
a requested document
or category of documents because of a rule, privilege, immumity, or other reason, for each
document partially or entirely withheld, identify the document and state the factual basis on
which Y ou claim the privilege or immunity.
3. Tf Your refusal to produce any document is based upon a claim that the document
is subjectto 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 documentby author(s), addressees), 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 intemogatory and request is to be read, construed, and respondedto
separately and independently without reference to or being limited by any other interrogatory
and request unless otherwise noted.
6. In answering these interrogatories
and requests, You are required
to fumish all
information available to You, including information in the possession, custody, or control of
Your attomeys, 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 interrogatories and/or 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 Y ou have conceming
the unanswered portions and why Y ou are unable to answer the unanswered portions.
7. The tems “AND” and “OR” are to be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively, whichever is appropriate, so as to bring within the scope of these interrogatories
and 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 interrogatories and requests any information or documents that might otherwise be
considered beyond its scope.
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 4 of 23
II DEFINITIONS
1 “Plaintiffs” refers to John Doe I, individually and as next friend of John Doe II, a
minor, including without limitation, their agents, attomeys, accountants, employees, and all other
persons who act on their behalf.
2. “Anderson Defendants” refers collectively to The Anderson Private School,
William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, and AlexanderA.
Anderson, Individually.
3. “Ripley” refers to Ripley Entertainment, Inc., including without limitation, its
agents, attomeys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on its behalf.
4. “Communication” or “Communications” means the transmission, sending and/or
receipt of information of any kind by and through any means including, but not limited to,
speech, writings, language (machine, foreign or otherwise), computer electronics of any kind
(eg. e-mail), videotape, photographs, graphs, symbols, signs, floppy disks, CD-ROM discs,
memory sticks, thumb drives, smart phone, text message, telecommumication, cell phone,
telephone, teletype, facsimile, telegram, microfilm, microfiche, photographic film of all type,
digital media storage, 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 or statements of any kind.
5. “Possession” means any information or documents and electronic data within
Your possession, custody or control, including Y our attomeys, representatives, accountants, or
any other person acting or purporting to act on Y our behalf or in concert with You. This tem
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.
6. “Document” or “Documents” or “Documentation” 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 such material. The term “Document” or “Documents” also includes
electronically stored information, including electronically generated and stored files, computer
files, emails, 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
regardto any responsive document.
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’ s First Request for Production
and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 5 of 23
7. “Relate to” or “Related to” means all documents or commumications that
constitute, contain, embody, comprise, reflect, identify, state, referto, deal with, comment on,
respond to, describe, analyze, Or ae in any ‘way patinent to that subject including, without
limitation, documents conceming the presentation of other
8. “You” and/or “Your” referto the responding party, including, without limitation,
all of his employees, agents or employees, representatives, and all other persons who act on
responding party’ s behalf.
9. “Any” means any and all documents, persons, or entities inclusively, not the
option of responding
as to some
but not to others.
10. “Conversatiol means and includes all verbal, written, or edectronic
communications that Y ou made, sent, or received.
11 “Petition” means Plaintiffs Original Petition filed in this action and any
subsequent amendments and supplements thereto.
12. “Lawsuit” means Cause No. DC-15-07174, styled John DoeI, Individually, and
as Next Friend of John Doe II, a minorv. The Anderson Private School, WilliamC. Anderson,
Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, AdamA. Alexander, Individually, Ripley
Entertainment, Inc. and Jim Pattinson, U.S.A, Inc., pending
in the 44th Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas.
13. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships,
unions, associations, federations or any other kind of entity.
14. “RIBON” means the Ripley’ s Believe It Or Not at 601 E. Palace Parkway, Grand
Prairie, Texas 75050.
15. “Department” means the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services for
the State of Texas.
Ill PRIVILEGED OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
1 If any Document requested is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege or
work product, or otherwise, Y ou 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;
c. Identifying the subject matter of the document;
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’ s First Request for Production
and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 6 of 23
d. Describing the nabire of the documents (eg. letter, mail, text message,
memorandum, etc.);
Stating the identity of each person who had access to, custody of, and who
received a copy of the document;
Identifying the present custodian;
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.
Iv. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD
Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for all documents to be produced in
responseto the following Document requests is January 1, 2009to the present.
Vv 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, 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 but not limited to Microsoft Exchange, Lotus
Notes, IBM GroupWise shall be produced in their native format, or in the altemative readily
accessible industry-standard formats that fairly, accurately, and completely represent such
4 Documents and their metadata portrayed in structured electronic databases or files
(excluding e-mails) shall be producedin 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
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 7 of 23
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 field level schemas; or (d) fixed or variable length ASCII delimited files but
only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s), and field level schemas.
5. Documents and their metadata portrayed in unstructured files generated by
commercially available software systems excluding e-mails and structured electronic databases
such as word processing, spreadsheet, image files, and text files shall be produced as those files
are stored in the ordinary course
of business.
6. Documents and their metadata portrayed on paper or in an industry-standard
image format shall be producedin image format (200-300 bpi in group 3 TIF format, in TIF
format, or 200-300 bpi in PDF format). In addition, relationships among the images shall be
described with respect to 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 that shall be accompanied with reasonable 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 is 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.
DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Interrogatory No. 1: Provide the name, address, telephone number, qualifications, job
description and period of contact, employment or service, of all persons providing care,
supervision, teaching, counseling or assistance of John Doe IL.
Answer:
Request for Production No. 1: Produce any documents arising from any search, investigation
or background check into the persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1.
Response:
Request _for Admission 1: Admit or deny that you did not conduct or request a search,
investigation or background check into all of the persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1
Response:
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’ s First Request for Production
and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 8 of 23
Request for Production No. 2: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship between
you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding her care, supervision, teaching,
counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms.
Sammons application, resume, employment contract, job description, service proposals and care
Plans, and accounting records regarding compensation for Ms. Ice/Sammons services.
Response:
Request for Production No. 3: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship between
you and Amanda Bell regarding her care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of
John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms. Bell's application, resume,
employment contract, job description, service proposals and care plans, and accounting records
regarding compensation for Ms. Bell's services.
Response:
Request for Production No. 4: Produce any documents evidencing communications between
you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding the care, supervision, teaching,
counseling, or assistance of John Doe II.
Response:
Request for Production No. 5: Produce any documents evidencing communications between
you and Amanda Bell regarding
the care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John
Doell.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 2: Provide the name, address, telephone number of any persons, except your
attomeys, with whom you have discussed your allegations that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually
abused John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of each communication and a verbatim
recitation of each communication.
Answer:
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 9 of 23
Request for Production No. 6: Produce any commumications between you and any other
person, except your attomey, that address your allegation that Alexander A. Anderson sexually
abused John Doe II.
Response:
Request for Admission 2: Admit or deny that you have not had any communication with John
Doe II's birth mother about your allegation
that Alexander Anderson sexually abused John Doe
I.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 3: If you denied Request for Admission 2, provide the date and time of each
communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication.
Answer:
Request for Admission 3: Admit or deny that John Doe II's birth mother is not a party to this
lawsuit.
Response:
Request for Admission 4: Admit or deny that you told the parents of other students at the
Anderson School that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 4: If you admitted request for admission 4, provide the name, address,
telephone number of each parent
that you told AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe
IL. Also, provide the date and time of each communication.
Answer:
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 10 of 23
Request _for Production No. 7: Produce any documents that support your allegation that
AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.
Response:
Request for Admission 5: Admit or deny that you did not witness AlexanderA. Anderson have
sexual contact with John Doe II on October 31, 2014.
Response:
Request _for Admission 6: Admit or deny that you have never witnessed Alexander A.
Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 5: Provide the name, address and telephone number of anyone who has
witnessed Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II. Also, provide the date
and time of the incident.
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 6: Provide the name, address and school principal of each school John Doe
TI has ever attended.
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 7: Explain why John Doe II is no longer at each of the schools identified in
answerto interrogatorynumber 6.
Answer:
Request for Admission 7: Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II on the Ripley's
Believe it or Not field trip on October 31, 2014.
Response:
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 11 of 23
Request for Admission 8; Admit or deny that you accompanied
John Doe II into each exhibit at
Ripley's Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 8: If you denied request for admission 8, please explain why you did not
accompany John Doe II into each exhibit on October 31, 2014.
Answer:
Request for Admission 9: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not was opento the general
public on October 31, 2014.
Response:
Request for Admission 10; Admit or deny that Other Patrons were at Ripley's Believe it or Not
on October 31, 2014. "Other patrons" is defined as persons other than the Anderson Private
School students, parents, teachers and chaperons.
Response:
Request for Admission 11: Admit or deny that employees and personnel of Ripley's Believe it
or Not were present on October 31, 2014.
Response:
Request for Admission 12: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not had security cameras
on October 31, 2014.
Response:
Request for Production No. 8: Produce any text messages sent or received by you regarding
your allegation that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. This request excludes
text messages to or from your attomeys.
Response:
Request for Production No. 9: Produce any visual images evidencing Alexander Anderson's
sexual contact with John Doe II.
Response:
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 12 of 23
Request _for Production No. 10: Produce any communications from anyone, except your
attomeys, alleging that Alex Anderson ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the
purposes of this request, there is no time limit.
Response:
Request for Production No. 11: Produce any documents evidencing that any of the Defendants
ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there
is no time
limit.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 9: Identify all physical evidence that John Doe II was sexually abused on
October 31, 2014.
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 10: Identify any medical tests that confirm that John Doe II was sexually
abused on October 31, 2014.
Answer:
Interrogatory No. 11: Where were you when John Doe II was allegedly sexually abused on
October 31, 2014.
Answer:
Request for Admission 13: Admit or deny that the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services investigated the alleged October 31, 2014 incident at Ripley's Believe it or Not and
determined after investigation that John Doe II was not abused, neglected or exploited while in
the care of the Anderson School.
Response:
Interrogatory No. 12: If you denied request for admission 13, explain the basis for your denial
and produce any documents in support of your denial.
Answer:
Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and.
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 13 of 23
Request for Production No. 12: Produce all documents that support your allegations that any
Defendant physically abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes
of this request, there is
no time limit
Response:
Interrogatory No. 13: Identify the date and time that you were first informed that John Doe II
was allegedly sexually abused on October 31, 2014. Also, describe how you were informed and.
describe the information provided.
Answer:
Request for Production No. 13: Produce any communications between you and any other
person regarding your allegations that any person neglected, in any way, John Doe II. For the
purposes of this request, there is no time limit.
Response:
Request for Production No. 14: Produce any documents related to any allegations that any
Person neglected, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes
of this request, there is no time
limit.
Response:
Request for Production No. 1
Preview
I DALLAS COUNTY 12/9/2015 2:15:15 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS IN THE DISTRICT COURT NEXT FRIEND TO JOHN DOE II, A MINOR Plaintiffs VS. THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS LEVONNA Cc ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, “ ALEXANDER A ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, _ INC., and JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC. 44TH-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON’ S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTFF JOHN DOE I TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Defendant, Alexander A. Anderson (Defendant), and files this Motion to Compel against Plaintiff John Doe I (Plaintiff), and respectfully shows the Court: Relevant Procedural and Factual History 1 The Court signed an Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) scheduling order on August 3, 2015 that states each party shall have 50 interrogatories. See Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) {| 4 (on file with the Court). The On August 17, 2015 the patties filed a Rule 11 Agreement amending portions of the Court’s Uniform Order. Notably, the parties’ Rule 11 Agreement does not in any way change or limit the mmber of interrogatories allowed by each party in the Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3). 2. On October 26, 2015 Defendant served on Plaintiff “Defendant Alexander A. Andersons First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First Requests for Admission” (Discovery Requests). See Ex. 1. Plaintiff responded to the Discovery Requests Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 1 of 9 with meritless objections. See Ex. 2, Plaintiff John Doe I’s Answers, Responses and Objections to AlexanderA. Anderson’s First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First Requests for Admission (Plaintiff's Response). After conferencing on an earlier draft of this Motion that contained additional items not presented herein, Plaintiff provided his First Supplemental Answers, Responses and Objections upon which this Motion as filed is based. See Ex. 3. 3. Additionally, along with making meritless formulaic objections and in direct contravention with the miles of civil procedure which requires production of responsive documents with discovery responses, Plaintiff failed to produce any responsive documents. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(b) & cmt. 2 (noting that party has an obligationto produce any items to the extent that it does not object); Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3(a) (stating that a party is required to produce all items in their possession, custody or control). 4. At issue in this Motion to Compel are Requests for Production numbers 1 through. 55, Interrogatories numbers 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23; and Request for Admission numbers 13 (p.28), 13? (p.33), and 14. Argument and Authorities? 5. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has wholly failed to verify his responses to Defendant’ s interrogatories as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.2(d) & cmt. 2. 6. Further, Plaintiff, without producing a single responsive document or item and in response has stated instead that “Plaintiff will present all such evidence at trial . . .” and generally * Defendant moves to compel to the extent that Plaintiff relies on the privileges asserted under Texas Rules of Evidence 509 and 510. ? Requests for Admission were erroneously duplicated in Defendant’s Discovery Requests, therefore a reference in Plaintiff’ s Response is provided. This section is not meant to enumerate the entirety of Plaintiffs impermissible and obstructive responses, it is merely meant to highlight the more egregious nonresponsive items. Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 2 of 9 that Plaintiff “will produce” responsive documents. See eg., Ex. 2. resp. to Interrogatory number 9 and nearly all responsesto Defendant’s Requests for Production. However, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require that all available responsive documents in the party’s actual or constructive possession be provided with a party’s discovery responses. See e.g., Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1, 193.2(b), 196.3(a). And, that if documents are not produced, that the responding party state a specific time and place for production. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that he, and not the rules, will dictate when his responses will be forthcoming, up to and including his intent to withhold responsive information until trial. In a case such as this, where after six months the Plaintiffs have not supported their allegations with any facts’ and those allegations have been investigated and dismissed by two independent investigative agencies, Plaintiff's position on his intent to withhold information, failure to produce validly requested information appropriately related to deciphering the factual basis of the Plaintiffs’ claims, is highly prejudicial to Defendant's ability to defend against what are as of this filing, not only wholly unsubstantiated claims but claims investigated and determined to be unfounded. See Ex. A to Def.’s Discovery Requests in Ex. 1 hereto, Grand Prairie Police Department Report (stating John Doe I’s claims were “unfounded”); Ex. 4, Correspondence and Report of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (stating that Alexander A. Anderson had “no role” and that no child was exploited, abusedor neglected in Defendants’ care). 7. Further, the Court’s Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) clearly states that each party shall have fifty (50) interrogatories. See Agreed Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) 14. Despite this clear language, Plaintiff, relying generally on the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure with no specific cite thereto, beginning with his response to Defendant’s Request for 4 See Defendants’ Special Exceptions (on file with the Court). Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 3 of 9 Intenogatory number 16 and continuing through interrogatory number 23, objects asserting that Defendant has exceeded his allotted number of interrogatories and discreet subparts. See Ex. 2. Not only is Plaintiff's objection based on excessive requests unsupported by citation to any specific authority, it is in direct contradiction to the clear language of the Court’s Order allowing fifty (50) interrogatories to each party. Further, reviewing Defendant’ s interrogatories numbered 1 through 15 none of those interrogatories can be construed to contain more than a single interrogatory and allowable supporting information as recognized by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 190 cmt. 3 (identifying a discreet subpart as information that is not logically or factually related to the primary interogatory). 8. Plaintiff’ s remaining objections to Defendant’ s interrogatories are meritless, form objections intended solely to prevent Defendant's from obtaining any detail about the Plaintiffs’ vague, unsubstantiated allegation of sexual abuse. Despite knowing that two independent agencies investigated and dismissed Plaintiff John Doe I’s claims that Defendant Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II, John Doe I filed the present lawsuit. See Exs. C, D. To date, nearly six months into the lawsuit within which Plaintiffs have still not provided any factual basis for their claims, John Doe I now takes the position that information about the factual basis or persons with potential information about the factual basis of his claims are not proper subjects of discovery. In example, (1) in his response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff takes the position that a request for information about persons with an ability to observe, work with or communicate with John Doe II is overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, not relevant, would not lead to admissible evidence, and is somehow vague or confusing; (2) in his response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff makes similar form objections to Defendant’s request for information about persons with whom John Doe I has discussed the allegations that serve as Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 4 of 9 the basis for all of his claims, and (3) in his responseto Defendant’s Interrogatory number 3, Plaintiff goes so far as to assert physician/patient privilege with respect to his communications regarding the abuse with John Doe II’s birth mother, Charlotte Ice, and others. See Ex. 2. 9. Even if such privilege applied, which it does not because Plaintiffs waived such privilege by relying on John Doe II’s mental and physical condition for their claims, it is highly unlikely that all communications with the parties alleged to enjoy the asserted privilege would, in fact, qualify for that privilege—moreover, Plaintiff did not produce any privilege log with his responses. See Tex. R. Evid. 509(e)(4), 510(d)(5); Ex. 1. Moreover, to the degree that the records sought are medical or other records about John Doe II, Plaintiff’s son, Plaintiff, as John Doe II’s parent, has superior right to those records over any third-party holding them and as such is required to produce them as those records are within John Doe I's possession, custody and control. 10. Plaintiff has lodged similar form objections to requests for information about John Doe II's prior schools and why John Doe II no longer attends those schools (Defendant’s Intenogatories number 6 and 7, both at the very least relevant to determining any past history of allegations of abuse by the plaintiffs); a request for the list of medical tests that confirm that John Doe II was sexually abused on October 31, 2014 (Defendant's Interrogatory number 10, which Plaintiff somehow feels is overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing); and requests for information related to or support Plaintiffs’ own allegations (see, in example, responses to Defendant’s requests for production numbers 12 through 19, 46, 51, and 52 and interrogatory number 14). 11. Plaintiff's reliance on Loftin v. Martin as precluding Defendant’s contention discovery in this matteris misplaced. See generally, Ex. B. Loftin stands for the proposition that Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 5 of 9 a requesting party cannot simply request all evidence that support the responding party’s allegations as a whole. See Loftinv. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989), disapproved of on other grounds by Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The Court’s main complaint was that the request in Loftin lacked specificity, and as such, was vague, broad and unclear. See id. at 148. The Court in Loftin focused on the fact that the request did not identify any particular class or type of documents. Id. Subsequent to Loftin, Courts have applied Loftin to allow discovery of documents related to specific contentions or items at issue in the case at bar. 12. In example, in Chamberlainv. Cherry, the Amarillo Court of Appeals, discussing Loftin, concluded that a request for particular classes or types of documents was permissible. 818 S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, no pet.) (holding that a request for production of “any and all leases or rental agreements, deposit agreements, and related documents conceming or pertaining to all or part of the property subject of this suit for the period since July 31, 1989” ‘was within the bounds of acceptable discovery ). Likewise, in In re Waste Mgnt. of Tex, Inc., the Texarkana Court of Appeals distinguished the generic request in Loftin—“all evidence that supports Lumbermens’ allegations’—and allowed as propedy propounded, requests for production information that were namowly tailored to a specific aspect, item, or allegation at issue in the lawsuit. 392 S.W.3d 861, 872 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.). Here the objectedto requests within which Plaintiff assets Loftin in support of his objection are, unlike the general request rejected in Loftin, all narrowly tailored by time, subject matter, and categoryof documents sought. Further, all are directly related to an issue in contention in this case. Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 6 of 9 13. Moreover, to the degree that Plaintiff complains that any request violates the attomey-client or “investigative” privilege, as noted above, he has not provided any privilege log. 14. Inhis responses, Plaintiff asserts that he may designate several fact witnesses as nor-retained experts. To the degree that Plaintiff intends to do so, because he has not yet asserted any such designation, for the purposes of Defendant's discovery and Plaintiff’s responses, those persons are strictly fact witnesses and there are no expert-based restrictions or limitations on Defendant's inquiries. Further, even if Plaintiff were to designate those persons identified in its Discovery Responses as non-retained experts, the knowledge of the facts and events of any of those parties material to the lawsuit are discoverable. See Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. 1990) (“The factual knowledge and opinions acquired by an individual who is an expert and an active participant in the events material to the lawsuit are discoverable. This information is not shielded from discovery by merely changing the designation of a person with knowledge of relevant facts to a ‘consulting-only expert.’”); In re Harvest Cmtys. of Houston, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 343, 348 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (recognizing non-retained experts can testify about what they saw and did). 15. And, finally with respect to Defendant’ s request for the Halloween costume wom. by John Doe II on the date of the alleged assault, Plaintiffs impermissibly attemptto make such production conditional upon Defendant providing the “exact reasons for the Request.” See Ex. 2 p.48 (response to Defendant’s Request for Production number 53). This is not a valid objection and Plaintiff is in no position to mandate that Defendant provide any further information beyond his properly lodged and appropriately tailored request. Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 7 of 9 PRAYER Accordingly, Defendants request that this Court Order Defendant to comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, by fully and completely responding to the Defendant's Discovery Requests and requiring Plaintiff to provide the required verification to the interrogatories contained therein. Defendant further prays for any and all relief to which they shows themselves entitled, whether pleaded or unplead. Respectfully Submitted, By /s/ Robert Hammer Robert W. Hammer State Bar No.: 08854780 William H. Kincaid State Bar No.: 11431500 ROBERT W. HAMMER 300 Legacy Downs Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76126 Telephone 817/ 332-8266 Telefax 817/ 332-8708 robert@rhammernlaw.com. AND WILLIAM H. KINCAID Box 457 Sanger, Texas 76266 Telephone 940/372-3598 whk4888@yahoo.com ATTORNEYS FOR DFENDANTS THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LeVONNA C. ANDERSON, and ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 8 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that on December 3rd, 2015, I conducted a conference with Plaintiff John Doe T’s counsel and had substantive discussions on the items presented to the Court in this motion and that despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve the matters presented. By /s/ Robert Hammer Robert W. Hammer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on each attomey of record. or party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 9th day of December, 2015, as follows: John D. Sloan, Jr. Douglas W. Lukasik SLOAN MATNEY, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 jsloan@sloanmatney.com. dlukasik@sloanmatney.com (f) 214-237-5474 Attomeys for Plaintiffs 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. tifications@whbclawfirm.com (f) 214-760-1670 By /s/ Robert Hammer Robert W. Hammer Defendant AlexanderA. Anderson’ s Motion to Compel Plaintiff J ohn Doe I Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT 1 CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS IN THE DISTRICT COURT NEXT FRIEND TO JOHN DOE II, A MINOR Plaintiffs VS. THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS LEVONNA Cc ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, “ALEXANDER A ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, _ INC., and JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC. 44TH-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE I To: Plaintiff J ohn Doe I by and through his counsel John D. Sloan,Jr. and DouglasW. Lukasik, SLOAN MATNEY, LLP, 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1200, Dallas, Texas 75219, jsloan@sloannatney.com, dlukasik@sloanmatney.com, (f) 214-237-5474. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196, 197 and 198, Defendant Alex Alexander requests that Plaintiff John Doe I respond to the following Intemogatories and Requests for Production and serve such response upon Robert W. Hammer, 300 Legacy Downs Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76126, robert@rhammenaw.com; Telefax 817/ 332-8708, on or before thirty (30) days after service of these requests. Respectfully Submitted, By /s/ Robert Hammer Robert W. Hammer State Bar No.: 08854780 William H. Kincaid State Bar No.: 11431500 Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 1 of 23 ROBERT W. HAMMER 300 Legacy Downs Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76126 Telephone 817/ 332-8266 Telefax 817/ 332-8708 robert@rhammerlaw.com. AND WILLIAM H. KINCAID Box 457 Sanger, Texas 76266 Telephone 940/ 372-3598 whk4888@yahoo.com ATTORNEYS FOR DFENDANTS THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LeVONNA C ANDERSON, and ALEXANDER A ANDERSON Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 2 of 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and conect copy of the above was served on each attomey of record. orparty in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 26th day of October, 2015, as follows: John D. Sloan, Jr. Douglas W. Lukasik SLOAN MATNEY, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 jsloan@sloanmatney.com. dlukasik@sloanmatney.com (f) 214-237-5474 Attomeys for Plaintiffs 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. tifications@whbclawfirm.com (f) 214-760-1670 By /s/ Robert Hammer Robert W. Hammer Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 3 of 23 I INSTRUCTIONS 1 To the fullest extent permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, these interrogatories and requests for production are intended to be continuing in nabire. You are requested and required to supplement your responses when appropriate or necessary to make them correct and complete. 2. Tf You contend that Y ou may partially or entirely withhold a requested document or category of documents because of a rule, privilege, immumity, or other reason, for each document partially or entirely withheld, identify the document and state the factual basis on which Y ou claim the privilege or immunity. 3. Tf Your refusal to produce any document is based upon a claim that the document is subjectto 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 documentby author(s), addressees), 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 intemogatory and request is to be read, construed, and respondedto separately and independently without reference to or being limited by any other interrogatory and request unless otherwise noted. 6. In answering these interrogatories and requests, You are required to fumish all information available to You, including information in the possession, custody, or control of Your attomeys, 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 interrogatories and/or 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 Y ou have conceming the unanswered portions and why Y ou are unable to answer the unanswered portions. 7. The tems “AND” and “OR” are to be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively, whichever is appropriate, so as to bring within the scope of these interrogatories and 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 interrogatories and requests any information or documents that might otherwise be considered beyond its scope. Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 4 of 23 II DEFINITIONS 1 “Plaintiffs” refers to John Doe I, individually and as next friend of John Doe II, a minor, including without limitation, their agents, attomeys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on their behalf. 2. “Anderson Defendants” refers collectively to The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, and AlexanderA. Anderson, Individually. 3. “Ripley” refers to Ripley Entertainment, Inc., including without limitation, its agents, attomeys, accountants, employees, and all other persons who act on its behalf. 4. “Communication” or “Communications” means the transmission, sending and/or receipt of information of any kind by and through any means including, but not limited to, speech, writings, language (machine, foreign or otherwise), computer electronics of any kind (eg. e-mail), videotape, photographs, graphs, symbols, signs, floppy disks, CD-ROM discs, memory sticks, thumb drives, smart phone, text message, telecommumication, cell phone, telephone, teletype, facsimile, telegram, microfilm, microfiche, photographic film of all type, digital media storage, 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 or statements of any kind. 5. “Possession” means any information or documents and electronic data within Your possession, custody or control, including Y our attomeys, representatives, accountants, or any other person acting or purporting to act on Y our behalf or in concert with You. This tem 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. 6. “Document” or “Documents” or “Documentation” 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 such material. The term “Document” or “Documents” also includes electronically stored information, including electronically generated and stored files, computer files, emails, 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 regardto any responsive document. Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’ s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 5 of 23 7. “Relate to” or “Related to” means all documents or commumications that constitute, contain, embody, comprise, reflect, identify, state, referto, deal with, comment on, respond to, describe, analyze, Or ae in any ‘way patinent to that subject including, without limitation, documents conceming the presentation of other 8. “You” and/or “Your” referto the responding party, including, without limitation, all of his employees, agents or employees, representatives, and all other persons who act on responding party’ s behalf. 9. “Any” means any and all documents, persons, or entities inclusively, not the option of responding as to some but not to others. 10. “Conversatiol means and includes all verbal, written, or edectronic communications that Y ou made, sent, or received. 11 “Petition” means Plaintiffs Original Petition filed in this action and any subsequent amendments and supplements thereto. 12. “Lawsuit” means Cause No. DC-15-07174, styled John DoeI, Individually, and as Next Friend of John Doe II, a minorv. The Anderson Private School, WilliamC. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, AdamA. Alexander, Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc. and Jim Pattinson, U.S.A, Inc., pending in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. 13. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, federations or any other kind of entity. 14. “RIBON” means the Ripley’ s Believe It Or Not at 601 E. Palace Parkway, Grand Prairie, Texas 75050. 15. “Department” means the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services for the State of Texas. Ill PRIVILEGED OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1 If any Document requested is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege or work product, or otherwise, Y ou 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; c. Identifying the subject matter of the document; Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’ s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 6 of 23 d. Describing the nabire of the documents (eg. letter, mail, text message, memorandum, etc.); Stating the identity of each person who had access to, custody of, and who received a copy of the document; Identifying the present custodian; 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. Iv. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for all documents to be produced in responseto the following Document requests is January 1, 2009to the present. Vv 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, 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 but not limited to Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes, IBM GroupWise shall be produced in their native format, or in the altemative readily accessible industry-standard formats that fairly, accurately, and completely represent such 4 Documents and their metadata portrayed in structured electronic databases or files (excluding e-mails) shall be producedin 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 Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 7 of 23 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 field level schemas; or (d) fixed or variable length ASCII delimited files but only if provided with definitive file(s), table(s), and field level schemas. 5. Documents and their metadata portrayed in unstructured files generated by commercially available software systems excluding e-mails and structured electronic databases such as word processing, spreadsheet, image files, and text files shall be produced as those files are stored in the ordinary course of business. 6. Documents and their metadata portrayed on paper or in an industry-standard image format shall be producedin image format (200-300 bpi in group 3 TIF format, in TIF format, or 200-300 bpi in PDF format). In addition, relationships among the images shall be described with respect to 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 that shall be accompanied with reasonable 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 is 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. DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Interrogatory No. 1: Provide the name, address, telephone number, qualifications, job description and period of contact, employment or service, of all persons providing care, supervision, teaching, counseling or assistance of John Doe IL. Answer: Request for Production No. 1: Produce any documents arising from any search, investigation or background check into the persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1. Response: Request _for Admission 1: Admit or deny that you did not conduct or request a search, investigation or background check into all of the persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1 Response: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’ s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 8 of 23 Request for Production No. 2: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship between you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding her care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms. Sammons application, resume, employment contract, job description, service proposals and care Plans, and accounting records regarding compensation for Ms. Ice/Sammons services. Response: Request for Production No. 3: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship between you and Amanda Bell regarding her care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms. Bell's application, resume, employment contract, job description, service proposals and care plans, and accounting records regarding compensation for Ms. Bell's services. Response: Request for Production No. 4: Produce any documents evidencing communications between you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding the care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. Response: Request for Production No. 5: Produce any documents evidencing communications between you and Amanda Bell regarding the care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doell. Response: Interrogatory No. 2: Provide the name, address, telephone number of any persons, except your attomeys, with whom you have discussed your allegations that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of each communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication. Answer: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 9 of 23 Request for Production No. 6: Produce any commumications between you and any other person, except your attomey, that address your allegation that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Response: Request for Admission 2: Admit or deny that you have not had any communication with John Doe II's birth mother about your allegation that Alexander Anderson sexually abused John Doe I. Response: Interrogatory No. 3: If you denied Request for Admission 2, provide the date and time of each communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication. Answer: Request for Admission 3: Admit or deny that John Doe II's birth mother is not a party to this lawsuit. Response: Request for Admission 4: Admit or deny that you told the parents of other students at the Anderson School that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Response: Interrogatory No. 4: If you admitted request for admission 4, provide the name, address, telephone number of each parent that you told AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe IL. Also, provide the date and time of each communication. Answer: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 10 of 23 Request _for Production No. 7: Produce any documents that support your allegation that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Response: Request for Admission 5: Admit or deny that you did not witness AlexanderA. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II on October 31, 2014. Response: Request _for Admission 6: Admit or deny that you have never witnessed Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II. Response: Interrogatory No. 5: Provide the name, address and telephone number of anyone who has witnessed Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of the incident. Answer: Interrogatory No. 6: Provide the name, address and school principal of each school John Doe TI has ever attended. Answer: Interrogatory No. 7: Explain why John Doe II is no longer at each of the schools identified in answerto interrogatorynumber 6. Answer: Request for Admission 7: Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II on the Ripley's Believe it or Not field trip on October 31, 2014. Response: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 11 of 23 Request for Admission 8; Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II into each exhibit at Ripley's Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014. Response: Interrogatory No. 8: If you denied request for admission 8, please explain why you did not accompany John Doe II into each exhibit on October 31, 2014. Answer: Request for Admission 9: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not was opento the general public on October 31, 2014. Response: Request for Admission 10; Admit or deny that Other Patrons were at Ripley's Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014. "Other patrons" is defined as persons other than the Anderson Private School students, parents, teachers and chaperons. Response: Request for Admission 11: Admit or deny that employees and personnel of Ripley's Believe it or Not were present on October 31, 2014. Response: Request for Admission 12: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not had security cameras on October 31, 2014. Response: Request for Production No. 8: Produce any text messages sent or received by you regarding your allegation that AlexanderA. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. This request excludes text messages to or from your attomeys. Response: Request for Production No. 9: Produce any visual images evidencing Alexander Anderson's sexual contact with John Doe II. Response: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 12 of 23 Request _for Production No. 10: Produce any communications from anyone, except your attomeys, alleging that Alex Anderson ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there is no time limit. Response: Request for Production No. 11: Produce any documents evidencing that any of the Defendants ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there is no time limit. Response: Interrogatory No. 9: Identify all physical evidence that John Doe II was sexually abused on October 31, 2014. Answer: Interrogatory No. 10: Identify any medical tests that confirm that John Doe II was sexually abused on October 31, 2014. Answer: Interrogatory No. 11: Where were you when John Doe II was allegedly sexually abused on October 31, 2014. Answer: Request for Admission 13: Admit or deny that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigated the alleged October 31, 2014 incident at Ripley's Believe it or Not and determined after investigation that John Doe II was not abused, neglected or exploited while in the care of the Anderson School. Response: Interrogatory No. 12: If you denied request for admission 13, explain the basis for your denial and produce any documents in support of your denial. Answer: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Request for Production and. First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff John Doe I Page 13 of 23 Request for Production No. 12: Produce all documents that support your allegations that any Defendant physically abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there is no time limit Response: Interrogatory No. 13: Identify the date and time that you were first informed that John Doe II was allegedly sexually abused on October 31, 2014. Also, describe how you were informed and. describe the information provided. Answer: Request for Production No. 13: Produce any communications between you and any other person regarding your allegations that any person neglected, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there is no time limit. Response: Request for Production No. 14: Produce any documents related to any allegations that any Person neglected, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there is no time limit. Response: Request for Production No. 1