Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
11/9/2016 4:18:53 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JOHN DOE I, Individually
and as Next Friend of JOHN DOE II, a
Minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LEVONNA C.
ANDERSON, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, 44 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TH
RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND JIM
PATTISON U.S.A., INC.
Defendants.
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
John Doe I and John Doe II (“Plaintiffs”), file this Response, Objection and Motion
for Continuance to Ripley Entertainment, Inc. and Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively
“Defendants”) No Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in support
thereof shows the Court as follows:
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 1
SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
1. Defendants’ Motion is extremely narrow, and a bit misguided. The only
cause of action Defendants attack is Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants for premises
liability. Plaintiffs’ claims for Negligent Misrepresentation, Restatement of Torts §311,
§323, §344 cmt. f., DTPA and Breach of Express Warranty are not subject to the motion.
Moreover, Defendants have only brought a No Evidence Motion. As such, Plaintiffs only
have to bring a scintilla of evidence to meet their (extremely low) burden to defeat
Defendants’ motion. Moreover, Defendants’ use of the no evidence motion is not
proper. Defendants essentially argue a proposition of law, and then ask Plaintiffs to
marshal their evidence to defeat each element of that proposition of law. Defendants
were required to bring a traditional motion and argue the evidence. They did not do so,
and Plaintiffs object on this basis. Additionally, Defendants’ entire argument rests on the
holdings of Timberwalk Apartment Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) and
its progeny to argue a lack of duty in this matter, and Timberwalk does not even apply
to this case. As such, Defendants’ motion should be denied.
2. As a rule, “a person has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal
acts of a third person.” Timberwalk at 756. What Defendants ignore is the fact that the
present case does not fit within Timberwalk, because Defendants assumed their own
duty to protect Plaintiffs. The law is well settled that “one who voluntarily undertakes an
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 2
affirmative course of action for the benefit of another has a duty to exercise reasonable
care that the other's person or property will not be injured thereby.” Fort Bend County
Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Tex. 1991), Colonial Sav. Ass'n v. Taylor,
544 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Tex.1976). See also Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307,
309 (Tex.1983). In this case, it is undisputed that Defendants represented to Plaintiffs
that Defendants were electronically monitoring the Ripley’s premises for Plaintiffs’
safety. Defendants further represented that Defendants would not allow any unlawful
activity to occur at Ripley’s. By making these representations, Defendants’ assumed the
duty to reasonably carry them out. As a result, Timberwalk does not apply to this case,
and Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
3. Plaintiffs also object that the No Evidence Motion is premature. The issues
in Defendants’ Motion are largely related to expert testimony. As the experts have not
(and could not) been deposed yet, Defendants’ Motion is premature. Should the Court
feel that it is no longer premature to bring a No-Evidence Motion, Plaintiff requests a
ruling on his No-Evidence Motion.
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON
4. Plaintiffs rely upon the following evidence to defeat the Defendants’
Motion:
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 3
Deposition transcript (Vol. 2) of John Doe I, which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein;
Deposition transcript of Rachel Rotella, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
2 and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein;
Affidavit of Morris R. McGowen, Jr., which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3
and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein;
Affidavit of John D. Sloan, Jr. attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and
incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein.
Excerpts of exhibit 47 to the deposition transcript of Brad Makovy, which
are attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein;
Deposition transcript of Alexis Garcia, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
6 and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and
Cook Children’s Records identified as Doe 0001-0021, which are not
attached due to confidentiality issues, but are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein; and
Deposition exhibits 42 and 307.
THE LAW ON PREMISES LIABILITY AND APPLICATION TO THIS CASE
Timberwalk
5. As stated, Defendants’ entire motion relies on the Timberwalk factors in
an attempt to argue that Defendants did not owe Plaintiffs a duty in this matter.
However, as stated, Timberwalk does not apply to this case. This simple, yet critically
important, fact completely undermines Defendants’ motion. Because Defendants only
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 4
brought a no evidence motion, any evidence at all that undermines Timberwalk is
dispositive, and Defendants’ motion fails. As set forth herein, there is ample evidence
to do so.
Defendants’ Duty
6. The duty Defendants undertook in this matter arises as a result of
Defendants’ representations to all guests, including Plaintiffs, that Ripley’s actually
monitors them electronically for their safety 24 hours a day at all times.1 Ripley’s
further represented that it will not permit any “unlawful acts” to occur on the property.2
By making these representations, Ripley’s took it upon itself to act as a reasonably
prudent corporation would in similar circumstances.3 Moreover, a reasonable guest at
Ripley’s such as John Doe I would rely upon Ripley’s representations regarding
monitoring its premises for guest safety (which it effectively did not do) when
evaluating whether Ripley’s was a safe place to take a child.4
7. It was reasonably foreseeable that Ripley’s lack of electronic monitoring
in its attractions could facilitate the commission of criminal acts in those attractions,
1
Exhibit 2 page 127, lines 19-25; page 128, line 1 and Exhibit 3 page 4, paragraph 12 and Deposition
exhibit 307.
2
Exhibit 3 page 4, paragraph 12.
3
Id.
4
Id.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 5
and Ripley’s was negligent in failing to electronically or physically monitor these areas.5
Moreover, it was reasonably foreseeable that Ripley’s lack of employee safety training
at the facility level would create an environment increasing the possibility for criminal
acts on its premises, and Ripley’s was negligent in employee safety training.6
Furthermore, it was reasonably foreseeable that the lack of emphasis on safety policy
at the corporate (Pattison) level in the Ripley’s organization (such as its lack of policies
and procedures on employee safety training and its “lost child” policy), as well as its
failure to emphasize the importance of guest safety to its facilities, would then flow
down to the individual facility level and increase the risk of criminal activities such as
sexual assault, and the corporate level of Ripley’s was negligent when it did not
facilitate a corporate environment focused on guest safety.7
Defendants’ Breach of Duty
8. Unfortunately, Ripley’s did not fulfill the duty that it undertook.8 Ripley’s
did not electronically monitor guests for their safety.9 In fact, there were no video
cameras at all in the area where John Doe II was sexually assaulted by Alexander
5
Exhibit 3 pages 3 and 4, paragraph 11.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Exhibit 2 page 128, lines 4-9.
9
Id.; Exhibit 6 page 34 lines 10-20.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 6
Anderson.10 Moreover, Ripley’s unequivocally admits that the video cameras it does
have are not there for guests’ safety,11 and Ripley’s does not monitor any of the video
cameras it does have.12 Additionally, it is undisputed that John Doe I reasonably relied
upon Ripley’s representations.13
Causation and Damages
9. Lastly, Defendants’ failure to have proper electronic surveillance, training
and adequate security were the cause of the Plaintiffs’ damages. Ripley’s actions at
both the facility and corporate levels were the proximate cause for creating the
circumstances where a criminal act such as sexual assault may occur at Ripley’s Grand
Prairie location.14 Specifically, Ripley’s failures allowed Alexander Anderson to sexually
assault John Doe II at Ripley’s Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014.15
Del Lago Partners
10. As stated, Timberwalk does not govern this case, as a result of
Defendants’ assumption of duty. However, even had Defendants not assumed the
duty to prevent unlawful activities and to electronically monitor Plaintiffs for their
safety, Timberwalk would still not apply. Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith 307 S.W.3d
10
Id; Exhibit 3 page 2, paragraph 4.
11
Exhibit 2 page 118 lines 5-14.
12
Exhibit 2 122 lines 20-23.
13
Exhibit 1 (vol. 2) page 42 lines 19-25.
14
Exhibit 3 pages 3 and 4, paragraph 11.
15
Exhibit 3; Exhibit 5.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 7
762 (Tex. 2010) provides authority for the proposition that there are circumstances
where Timberwalk simply does not apply. In Del Lago, the Supreme Court determined
that the nature and character of a premises can be a factor that makes criminal activity
more foreseeable. Del Lago Partners, Inc. at 768. Under this analysis, Defendants’ have
a duty in this case. Ripley’s markets specifically to children and knows that small
children frequent Ripley’s.16 By catering to children and allowing “self-guided tours”
with no Ripley’s employees inside the attractions Ripley’s provides an environment for
criminal conduct and harm to children to occur.17 Additionally, Ripley’s was well aware
that there were complaints that its premises were not safe for children.18 Moreover,
Ripley’s had no protocol to ensure that its workers were not overwhelmed with
patrons, which was the case on the day of the sexual assault.19 Ripley’s further does
not have a policy to have any employees inside the attractions at any time.20 All
totaled Ripley’s actions at both the facility and corporate levels were the proximate
cause for creating the circumstances where a criminal act such as sexual assault may
occur at Ripley’s Grand Prairie location.21
16
Exhibit 2 page 82 lines 14-24, page 158 lines 5-9.
17
Id. page 88 lines14-21.
18
Deposition exhibit 42.
19
Exhibit 2 page 86 lines 1-4; Exhibit 6 page 16 lines 21-23 and page 26 lines 4-24.
20
Id. at page 88 lines 5-13.
21
Exhibit 3 page 4, paragraph 11.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 8
OBJECTION TO NO-EVIDENCE MOTION AND CONTINUANCE
11. Defendants bring a kitchen sink no-evidence motion, basically asking
Plaintiffs to marshal their evidence for each element of premises liability. This is
improper, and Plaintiffs object on this basis. Rule 166a(i) is clear that the Motion must
state the elements as to which there is no evidence. Defendants fail to do this.
Moreover, the expert deadline is not until November 16, 2016, and expert depositions
have not even begun.22 As such, Plaintiff objects to the no-evidence motion and seeks a
continuance on same.
PRAYER
12. Plaintiffs pray that, upon final hearing the Court deny Defendants Motion
for Summary Judgment in all respects, sustain Plaintiffs’ objections and continue the
hearing, as necessary. Plaintiffs further requests all other relief to which they are entitled
both in law and in equity.
22
Exhibit 4.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 9
Respectfully submitted,
JS
By:
JOHN D. SLOAN, JR.
State Bar No.: 00792080
DOUGLAS 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
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 9th day of November, 2016 a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document has been served via e-service 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
Rocky Feemster
Touchstone, Bernays
4040 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
rocky.feemster@tbjbs.com
Robert W. Hammer
300 Legacy Downs Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76126
robert@rhammerlaw.com
JS
____________________________________________
John D. Sloan, Jr.
4820-5842-7195, v. 1
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Page 11
Exhibit 1
· · · · · · · · · ··CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174
··
··JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY· ··) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
··AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO JOHN··)
··DOE II, A MINOR· · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)
· · · ·Plaintiffs,· · · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)
··VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)
··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.· · · · · ··) 44TH-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT
··
··*******************************************************
··
··
· · · · · · ··ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
··
· · · · · · · · · · · ·
··
· · · · · · · · · · ··JANUARY 15, 2016
··
· · · · · · · · · · · · ··VOLUME II
··
··*******************************************************
··
· · · ·ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ,
··
··produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendants
··
··The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson,
··
··Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, and
··
··Alexander A. Anderson, Individually and duly sworn, was
··
··taken in the above-styled and -numbered cause on the
··
··15th day of January, 2016, from 10:55 a.m. to 12:57
··
··p.m., before Chrissa K. Hollingsworth, CSR in and for
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 42
* * * VOLUME II
·1··the teacher's aide keeping an eye on your son, correct?
·2·· · · · · · · ·MR. SLOAN:··Objection, form.··You can
·3··answer.
·4·· · ··A.··No, not that day.
·5·· · ··Q.··(By Mr. Parks)··Okay.··Other than the day at
·6··Ripley's, any other time that your son was in the
·7··presence of anyone from the Anderson school, those red
·8··flags were on your mind, correct?
·9·· · · · · · · ·MR. SLOAN:··Objection, form.··Go ahead.
10·· · ··A.··Yes.
11·· · ··Q.··(By Mr. Parks)··Okay.··What was it about the
12··day at Ripley's the 31st of October that caused you not
13··to have those red flags on your mind?
14·· · ··A.··The five or six other parent chaperones that
15··were there that day, being out of that school, being in
16··a public place that you -- that you believe you're being
17··watched and believe that there's video cameras
18··everywhere.
19·· · ··Q.··So the -- your belief that there was video
20··cameras everywhere completely removed from your mind
21··that day any concerns regarding the red flags that you
22··were aware of prior to the 31st?
23·· · · · · · · ·MR. SLOAN:··Objection, form.
24·· · ··Q.··(By Mr. Parks)··Is that correct?
25·· · ··A.··No.··It -- no, but it did comfort me to know
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Exhibit 2
· · · · · · · · · · · CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174
·
· JOHN DOE I, Individually and as· · ·)· ··IN THE DISTRICT COURT
· Next Friend of JOHN DOE II, a· · · ·)
· Minor,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · ·· Plaintiffs,· · · · · · · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)· ··44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· 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
·
· ***************************************************************
·
·
· · · · · · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
·
· · · · · · · · · · · · · RACHEL ROTELLA
·
· · · · · · · · · · · ·· NOVEMBER 24, 2015
·
·
· ***************************************************************
·
·
· · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RACHEL ROTELLA, produced
·
· as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiffs, and duly sworn,
·
· was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 24th
·
· day of November, 2015, from 10:08 a.m. to 3:18 p.m., before
·
· Cheryl K. Perlich, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported
·
· by machine shorthand, at the law offices of Walters, Balido &
·
· Crain, LLP, located at 10440 North Central Expressway, Suite
·
· 1500, Dallas, Texas 75231, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
·
· Procedure.
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 82
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1··of everything that's in the handbook, but it's not location
·2··specific.
·3·· · ··Q.· ·And when you say produced very recently, when was --
·4··when did it come about?
·5·· · ··A.· ·I know it was in 2015, the beginning of the year.
·6·· · ··Q.· ·Okay.··So prior to October 31, 2014, you had not
·7··received any formal or informal training for guest safety; is
·8··that fair?
·9·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
10·· · ··Q.· ·And if I was to ask you what safety training you
11··received in your career for child guest safety prior to
12··October 31, 2014, your answer would be none?
13·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
14·· · ··Q.· ·Would you agree with me that Ripley's caters to
15··children as guests?
16·· · ··A.· ·Yes, yes, all sorts of families.
17·· · ··Q.· ·Yeah.··And your website has pictures of children,
18··yes?
19·· · ··A.· ·I'm not sure.··I can't remember.··I think so, but I
20··don't remember.
21·· · ··Q.· ·Kids under free -- kids under four are free?
22·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
23·· · ··Q.· ·Your company caters to field trips with kids?
24·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
25·· · ··Q.· ·It's safe to say that you certainly expect children
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 86
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1·· · ··Q.· ·Is there a protocol at Ripley's Believe It or Not
·2··Grand Prairie for employees to call someone if there are too
·3··many guests at the site at one time?
·4·· · ··A.· ·No, not that I'm aware of.
·5·· · ··Q.· ·And it's my understanding that as an attraction, it's
·6··possible you could have two people there or you could have 50
·7··people walk in the door; is that true?
·8·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
·9·· · ··Q.· ·Is there -- and so based upon your previous answer,
10··it's my understanding that there's no protocol at all for an
11··employee to call somebody if they think that there's too many
12··people there?
13·· · ··A.· ·No.
14·· · ··Q.· ·Is there a standard number of employees you'd like to
15··have on site per number of patrons?
16·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
17·· · ··Q.· ·What's the number?
18·· · ··A.· ·We determine -- well, no, there's not a standard.··We
19··determine our schedule based off years past.··So when we create
20··our schedule, for example, on a Saturday/Sunday, we're going to
21··have the proper amount of staff for the volume that we know
22··would most likely come in.
23·· · ··Q.· ·And what -- what do you try and work out the ratios
24··between employees and potential guests?
25·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Objection, form.
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 88
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1·· · ··A.· ·No.
·2·· · ··Q.· ·It's Ripley's Believe It or Not's policy not to have
·3··any staff in attractions; is that fair?
·4·· · ··A.· ·I don't know if it's the policy.
·5·· · ··Q.· ·Well, it's certainly not Ripley's Believe It or Not's
·6··policy to have them in the attractions; is that fair?
·7·· · ··A.· ·To have -- is there a policy saying we have to have
·8··staff in the attractions?
·9·· · ··Q.· ·At any time, yes.
10·· · ··A.· ·I don't -- I don't believe so.··I don't know.
11·· · ··Q.· ·In other words, you listed me areas where the staff
12··needs to be, but you didn't list any attractions.
13·· · ··A.· ·Right.
14·· · ··Q.· ·And that wasn't an omission, that was on purpose that
15··you didn't list them, true?
16·· · ··A.· ·True.··We do not have staff.··We don't have someone
17··inside the attraction.
18·· · ··Q.· ·Why?
19·· · ··A.· ·We do not have revenue areas inside the attractions.
20··The attractions run themselves.··It's not a tour, it's a
21··self-guided tour.
22·· · ··Q.· ·What about for safety of guests?
23·· · ··A.· ·We've never had safety issues.
24·· · · · · · · ··MR. SLOAN:··Objection, nonresponsive.
25·· · ··Q.· ·Do you think that it's necessary to have an employee
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 118
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1·· · ··Q.· ·And is that for employee theft?
·2·· · ··A.· ·Any reason, to see if they're horseplaying.··It's
·3··just angles that we didn't have, you know, that we had
·4··employees working.
·5·· · ··Q.· ·But the reason that you added them, I want to see if
·6··I can get the universe of reasons, was employee theft?
·7·· · ··A.· ·(Moving head up and down)
·8·· · ··Q.· ·Yes?
·9·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
10·· · ··Q.· ·Horseplay?
11·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
12·· · ··Q.· ·What other reasons?
13·· · ··A.· ·Just to make sure they're doing what they're being
14··paid to do.
15·· · ··Q.· ·Was part of it so that the employees knew there were
16··cameras -- extra cameras watching them?
17·· · ··A.· ·No.
18·· · ··Q.· ·Did they know that?
19·· · ··A.· ·I don't believe so, no.
20·· · ··Q.· ·Let's pull up Exhibit 38 again.··You should have it.
21·· · ··A.· ·Okay.
22·· · ··Q.· ·It's that floor plan.
23·· · ··A.· ·Thirty-eight?
24·· · ··Q.· ·Yeah.
25·· · ··A.· ·Okay.··Got it.
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 122
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1·· · ··Q.· ·And there's cameras in both back of houses all
·2··yellow, correct?
·3·· · ··A.· ·Yes, yes.
·4·· · ··Q.· ·There are no cameras in the Ripley's Believe It or
·5··Not, true?
·6·· · ··A.· ·True.
·7·· · ··Q.· ·Is that -- and there's no cameras inside the Mirror
·8··Maze, correct?
·9·· · ··A.· ·Correct.
10·· · ··Q.· ·Are those the only two places where there are no
11··cameras inside the attractions?
12·· · ··A.· ·The LaseRace.
13·· · ··Q.· ·And the LaseRace?
14·· · ··A.· ·(Moving head up and down)
15·· · ··Q.· ·What discussions have you ever had with anyone as to
16··whether there needs to be cameras inside all the attractions?
17·· · ··A.· ·I have not.
18·· · ··Q.· ·Do you think it's necessary?
19·· · ··A.· ·No.··We haven't had any reason to believe so.
20·· · ··Q.· ·But it's fair to say there is -- there's no
21··electronic monitoring in either the Ripley's Believe It or Not
22··or the Mirror Maze, true?
23·· · ··A.· ·True.
24·· · ··Q.· ·And speaking of monitoring, is there someone at
25··Ripley's Believe It or Not Grand Prairie that actually monitors
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 127
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1··refresh.··I bet you if you pull down, it refreshes.··Let's go
·2··back down and see if it popped up.··Here, let me see.
·3·· · · · · · · ··THE WITNESS:··(Tenders tablet to attorney)
·4·· · ··A.· ·Yeah, at the entrance.··I forgot.
·5·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··She can look at mine, if you want
·6··to.
·7·· · · · · · · ··MR. SLOAN:··Okay.··Oh, there it is.
·8·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··You've got it now.
·9·· · · · · · · ··THE WITNESS:··Oh, okay.··Thank you.
10·· · ··Q.· ·This sign is at the entrance for every car that
11··drives through into your parking lot, correct?
12·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
13·· · ··Q.· ·And it says, For the security of our guests, these
14··premises are being electronically monitored 24 hours a day,
15··correct?
16·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
17·· · ··Q.· ·Was that sign there on October 31, 2014?
18·· · ··A.· ·Yes, I believe so.
19·· · ··Q.· ·So when I asked you whether or not Ripley's
20··represents to each and every one of its guests whether -- that
21··it actually monitors them electronically for their safety
22··24 hours a day at all times --
23·· · ··A.· ·Yeah.
24·· · ··Q.· ·-- they do, don't they?
25·· · ··A.· ·Yes.··I'm sorry.··I forgot.··I forgot that one was
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 128
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1··there.
·2·· · ··Q.· ·That's okay.
·3·· · ··A.· ·I was thinking about in the lobby but...
·4·· · ··Q.· ·You would agree with me that guests that are in
·5··Ripley's Believe It or Not, the area, Ripley's Believe It or
·6··Not, are not being electronically monitored, are they?
·7·· · ··A.· ·Inside the Ripley's Believe It or Not?
·8·· · ··Q.· ·Yes.
·9·· · ··A.· ·No.
10·· · ··Q.· ·I want to talk about 2MCCTV.
11·· · ··A.· ·Sure.
12·· · ··Q.· ·Are they the only company that Ripley's has dealt
13··with for closed caption -- I always say that -- closed-circuit
14··cameras since you've been there?
15·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
16·· · ··Q.· ·As far as you know, are they the only company that
17··Ripley's Believe It or Not has dealt with for closed-circuit
18··television since 2009 forward?
19·· · ··A.· ·I'm not sure.
20·· · ··Q.· ·How would you find that?
21·· · ··A.· ·To be honest, I have no idea.··We'd have to ask the
22··previous general managers, maybe they have some form of record.
23··I don't know.
24·· · ··Q.· ·Wouldn't Ripley's keep some sort of record in --
25··don't you have some sort of security file or security vendor
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 158
RACHEL ROTELLA
·1··the Busbys and their attorneys made claims that Ripley's should
·2··have known that small children would frequent Ripley's Believe
·3··It or Not?
·4·· · ··A.· ·I don't remember the specifics, to be honest.
·5·· · ··Q.· ·Would you agree that that is a true statement, that
·6··Ripley's Entertainment, Inc. should know that small children
·7··will frequent Ripley's?
·8·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form.
·9·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
10·· · ··Q.· ·And would you agree with the statement that small
11··children frequently accompany their parents to Ripley's?
12·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
13·· · ··Q.· ·The last paragraph of that page says, Defendant knew
14··or should have known that the condition involved an
15··unreasonable risk of serious injury to small children and the
16··utility of maintaining the condition that caused Zach Busby's
17··injuries was slight as compared to the probability of injury
18··because Defendants could have very easily and relatively
19··inexpensively eliminated the risk with minimal burden.··Did I
20··read that correctly?
21·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
22·· · ··Q.· ·Did Ripley's corporate let you know that the Busbys
23··and their counsel made allegations against Ripley's that a
24··small child was injured as a result of Ripley's not taking
25··action that was relatively inexpensive to eliminate the harm?
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
· · · · · · · · · · · CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174
·
· JOHN DOE I, Individually and as· · ·)· ··IN THE DISTRICT COURT
· Next Friend of JOHN DOE II, a· · · ·)
· Minor,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · ·· Plaintiffs,· · · · · · · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)· ··44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· 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
·
· ***************************************************************
·
·
· · · · · · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
·
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ALEXIS GARCIA
·
· · · · · · · · · · · ·· DECEMBER 17, 2015
·
·
· ***************************************************************
·
·
· · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ALEXIS GARCIA, produced
·
· as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiffs, and duly sworn,
·
· was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 17th
·
· day of December, 2015, from 12:20 p.m. to 1:08 p.m., before
·
· Cheryl K. Perlich, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported
·
· by machine shorthand, at the law offices of Walters, Balido &
·
· Crain, LLP, located at 10440 North Central Expressway, Suite
·
· 1500, Dallas, Texas 75231, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
·
· Procedure.
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 16
ALEXIS GARCIA
·1··Amanda Emmons your boss?
·2·· · ··A.· ·Amanda Emmons.
·3·· · ··Q.· ·Okay.··So in 2014 in October, the chain of command
·4··for you was:··You, Amanda Emmons was above you and then
·5··Ms. Rotella was above her?
·6·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
·7·· · ··Q.· ·Was Ms. Tran above you or was it more sideways, she
·8··did something else?
·9·· · ··A.· ·She did something else.
10·· · ··Q.· ·Sales and marketing?
11·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
12·· · ··Q.· ·So if you were reporting directly to somebody in
13··October of 2014, it would be Ms. Emmons?
14·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
15·· · ··Q.· ·And then back to my question:··Do you think
16··Ms. Rotella would be okay with you basically running the entire
17··area dealing with all the customers and Ms. Tran and Ms. Emmons
18··were just in their office?
19·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Objection, form.
20·· · ··A.· ·If it's a slow day, yes.
21·· · ··Q.· ·Well, but let's say there's 20 or more people there.
22··Would she be okay with that if you're running back and forth?
23·· · ··A.· ·No.
24·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form.
25·· · ··Q.· ·She wouldn't be?
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 26
ALEXIS GARCIA
·1·· · ··Q.· ·Is that fair?
·2·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form.
·3·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
·4·· · ··Q.· ·All right.··I want to ask -- because I asked about
·5··four questions there and that's why it's objectionable.··First
·6··of all, does it look like -- see how she's walking in the snack
·7··area?··I mean, excuse me, in the gift shop?
·8·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
·9·· · ··Q.· ·Does it look like you see her?
10·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
11·· · ··Q.· ·And that's why you know that you can leave your area,
12··because she's coming?
13·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
14·· · ··Q.· ·And then because of that, you then run in a hurry,
15··true?
16·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
17·· · ··Q.· ·Back to the gift shop area, you're running, all the
18··way back to the gift shop area, aren't you?··True?
19·· · ··A.· ·Snack bar, yes.
20·· · ··Q.· ·Snack bar.··I'm sorry.··I'm saying gift shop.··You're
21··right, snack bar.··You ran from your ticket area all the way to
22··the snack bar area so you could finally help the customers,
23··true?
24·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
25·· · ··Q.· ·All right.··Has it ever been part of your job to look
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Page 34
ALEXIS GARCIA
·1··that Ms. Tran may have stolen some things?
·2·· · ··A.· ·I am aware about that, yes.
·3·· · ··Q.· ·What do you know about it?
·4·· · ··A.· ·Just that she stole money.
·5·· · ··Q.· ·And how much money is claimed that she stole, do you
·6··know?
·7·· · ··A.· ·I don't know.
·8·· · ··Q.· ·Do you have even a ballpark?
·9·· · ··A.· ·No.
10·· · ··Q.· ·Is it your understanding that the reason the
11··surveillance cameras are at Ripley's is to protect Ripley's
12··from employees or guests stealing things?
13·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form.
14·· · ··A.· ·No.
15·· · ··Q.· ·Why do you think they're there?
16·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form.
17·· · ··A.· ·As a manager, to make sure our staff is doing their
18··job.
19·· · ··Q.· ·Anything else?··Any other reason than that?
20·· · ··A.· ·None that I can think of.
21·· · ··Q.· ·And nobody has told -- nobody from Ripley's has told
22··you that the security cameras are there for any other reason
23··than to make sure that staff is doing their job?
24·· · ··A.· ·Yes.
25·· · ··Q.· ·That's true?
PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES
469.939.5606
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 11/9/2016 4:18:53 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 IN THE DISTRICT COURT JOHN DOE I, Individually and as Next Friend of JOHN DOE II, a Minor, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, 44 JUDICIAL DISTRICT TH RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC. Defendants. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT John Doe I and John Doe II (“Plaintiffs”), file this Response, Objection and Motion for Continuance to Ripley Entertainment, Inc. and Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively “Defendants”) No Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in support thereof shows the Court as follows: PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1 SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 1. Defendants’ Motion is extremely narrow, and a bit misguided. The only cause of action Defendants attack is Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants for premises liability. Plaintiffs’ claims for Negligent Misrepresentation, Restatement of Torts §311, §323, §344 cmt. f., DTPA and Breach of Express Warranty are not subject to the motion. Moreover, Defendants have only brought a No Evidence Motion. As such, Plaintiffs only have to bring a scintilla of evidence to meet their (extremely low) burden to defeat Defendants’ motion. Moreover, Defendants’ use of the no evidence motion is not proper. Defendants essentially argue a proposition of law, and then ask Plaintiffs to marshal their evidence to defeat each element of that proposition of law. Defendants were required to bring a traditional motion and argue the evidence. They did not do so, and Plaintiffs object on this basis. Additionally, Defendants’ entire argument rests on the holdings of Timberwalk Apartment Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) and its progeny to argue a lack of duty in this matter, and Timberwalk does not even apply to this case. As such, Defendants’ motion should be denied. 2. As a rule, “a person has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third person.” Timberwalk at 756. What Defendants ignore is the fact that the present case does not fit within Timberwalk, because Defendants assumed their own duty to protect Plaintiffs. The law is well settled that “one who voluntarily undertakes an PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2 affirmative course of action for the benefit of another has a duty to exercise reasonable care that the other's person or property will not be injured thereby.” Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Tex. 1991), Colonial Sav. Ass'n v. Taylor, 544 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Tex.1976). See also Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Tex.1983). In this case, it is undisputed that Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that Defendants were electronically monitoring the Ripley’s premises for Plaintiffs’ safety. Defendants further represented that Defendants would not allow any unlawful activity to occur at Ripley’s. By making these representations, Defendants’ assumed the duty to reasonably carry them out. As a result, Timberwalk does not apply to this case, and Defendants’ Motion should be denied. 3. Plaintiffs also object that the No Evidence Motion is premature. The issues in Defendants’ Motion are largely related to expert testimony. As the experts have not (and could not) been deposed yet, Defendants’ Motion is premature. Should the Court feel that it is no longer premature to bring a No-Evidence Motion, Plaintiff requests a ruling on his No-Evidence Motion. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON 4. Plaintiffs rely upon the following evidence to defeat the Defendants’ Motion: PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 3 Deposition transcript (Vol. 2) of John Doe I, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein; Deposition transcript of Rachel Rotella, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein; Affidavit of Morris R. McGowen, Jr., which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein; Affidavit of John D. Sloan, Jr. attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein. Excerpts of exhibit 47 to the deposition transcript of Brad Makovy, which are attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; Deposition transcript of Alexis Garcia, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and Cook Children’s Records identified as Doe 0001-0021, which are not attached due to confidentiality issues, but are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein; and Deposition exhibits 42 and 307. THE LAW ON PREMISES LIABILITY AND APPLICATION TO THIS CASE Timberwalk 5. As stated, Defendants’ entire motion relies on the Timberwalk factors in an attempt to argue that Defendants did not owe Plaintiffs a duty in this matter. However, as stated, Timberwalk does not apply to this case. This simple, yet critically important, fact completely undermines Defendants’ motion. Because Defendants only PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 4 brought a no evidence motion, any evidence at all that undermines Timberwalk is dispositive, and Defendants’ motion fails. As set forth herein, there is ample evidence to do so. Defendants’ Duty 6. The duty Defendants undertook in this matter arises as a result of Defendants’ representations to all guests, including Plaintiffs, that Ripley’s actually monitors them electronically for their safety 24 hours a day at all times.1 Ripley’s further represented that it will not permit any “unlawful acts” to occur on the property.2 By making these representations, Ripley’s took it upon itself to act as a reasonably prudent corporation would in similar circumstances.3 Moreover, a reasonable guest at Ripley’s such as John Doe I would rely upon Ripley’s representations regarding monitoring its premises for guest safety (which it effectively did not do) when evaluating whether Ripley’s was a safe place to take a child.4 7. It was reasonably foreseeable that Ripley’s lack of electronic monitoring in its attractions could facilitate the commission of criminal acts in those attractions, 1 Exhibit 2 page 127, lines 19-25; page 128, line 1 and Exhibit 3 page 4, paragraph 12 and Deposition exhibit 307. 2 Exhibit 3 page 4, paragraph 12. 3 Id. 4 Id. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 5 and Ripley’s was negligent in failing to electronically or physically monitor these areas.5 Moreover, it was reasonably foreseeable that Ripley’s lack of employee safety training at the facility level would create an environment increasing the possibility for criminal acts on its premises, and Ripley’s was negligent in employee safety training.6 Furthermore, it was reasonably foreseeable that the lack of emphasis on safety policy at the corporate (Pattison) level in the Ripley’s organization (such as its lack of policies and procedures on employee safety training and its “lost child” policy), as well as its failure to emphasize the importance of guest safety to its facilities, would then flow down to the individual facility level and increase the risk of criminal activities such as sexual assault, and the corporate level of Ripley’s was negligent when it did not facilitate a corporate environment focused on guest safety.7 Defendants’ Breach of Duty 8. Unfortunately, Ripley’s did not fulfill the duty that it undertook.8 Ripley’s did not electronically monitor guests for their safety.9 In fact, there were no video cameras at all in the area where John Doe II was sexually assaulted by Alexander 5 Exhibit 3 pages 3 and 4, paragraph 11. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Exhibit 2 page 128, lines 4-9. 9 Id.; Exhibit 6 page 34 lines 10-20. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 6 Anderson.10 Moreover, Ripley’s unequivocally admits that the video cameras it does have are not there for guests’ safety,11 and Ripley’s does not monitor any of the video cameras it does have.12 Additionally, it is undisputed that John Doe I reasonably relied upon Ripley’s representations.13 Causation and Damages 9. Lastly, Defendants’ failure to have proper electronic surveillance, training and adequate security were the cause of the Plaintiffs’ damages. Ripley’s actions at both the facility and corporate levels were the proximate cause for creating the circumstances where a criminal act such as sexual assault may occur at Ripley’s Grand Prairie location.14 Specifically, Ripley’s failures allowed Alexander Anderson to sexually assault John Doe II at Ripley’s Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014.15 Del Lago Partners 10. As stated, Timberwalk does not govern this case, as a result of Defendants’ assumption of duty. However, even had Defendants not assumed the duty to prevent unlawful activities and to electronically monitor Plaintiffs for their safety, Timberwalk would still not apply. Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith 307 S.W.3d 10 Id; Exhibit 3 page 2, paragraph 4. 11 Exhibit 2 page 118 lines 5-14. 12 Exhibit 2 122 lines 20-23. 13 Exhibit 1 (vol. 2) page 42 lines 19-25. 14 Exhibit 3 pages 3 and 4, paragraph 11. 15 Exhibit 3; Exhibit 5. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 7 762 (Tex. 2010) provides authority for the proposition that there are circumstances where Timberwalk simply does not apply. In Del Lago, the Supreme Court determined that the nature and character of a premises can be a factor that makes criminal activity more foreseeable. Del Lago Partners, Inc. at 768. Under this analysis, Defendants’ have a duty in this case. Ripley’s markets specifically to children and knows that small children frequent Ripley’s.16 By catering to children and allowing “self-guided tours” with no Ripley’s employees inside the attractions Ripley’s provides an environment for criminal conduct and harm to children to occur.17 Additionally, Ripley’s was well aware that there were complaints that its premises were not safe for children.18 Moreover, Ripley’s had no protocol to ensure that its workers were not overwhelmed with patrons, which was the case on the day of the sexual assault.19 Ripley’s further does not have a policy to have any employees inside the attractions at any time.20 All totaled Ripley’s actions at both the facility and corporate levels were the proximate cause for creating the circumstances where a criminal act such as sexual assault may occur at Ripley’s Grand Prairie location.21 16 Exhibit 2 page 82 lines 14-24, page 158 lines 5-9. 17 Id. page 88 lines14-21. 18 Deposition exhibit 42. 19 Exhibit 2 page 86 lines 1-4; Exhibit 6 page 16 lines 21-23 and page 26 lines 4-24. 20 Id. at page 88 lines 5-13. 21 Exhibit 3 page 4, paragraph 11. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 8 OBJECTION TO NO-EVIDENCE MOTION AND CONTINUANCE 11. Defendants bring a kitchen sink no-evidence motion, basically asking Plaintiffs to marshal their evidence for each element of premises liability. This is improper, and Plaintiffs object on this basis. Rule 166a(i) is clear that the Motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. Defendants fail to do this. Moreover, the expert deadline is not until November 16, 2016, and expert depositions have not even begun.22 As such, Plaintiff objects to the no-evidence motion and seeks a continuance on same. PRAYER 12. Plaintiffs pray that, upon final hearing the Court deny Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects, sustain Plaintiffs’ objections and continue the hearing, as necessary. Plaintiffs further requests all other relief to which they are entitled both in law and in equity. 22 Exhibit 4. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 9 Respectfully submitted, JS By: JOHN D. SLOAN, JR. State Bar No.: 00792080 DOUGLAS 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 PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9th day of November, 2016 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via e-service 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 Rocky Feemster Touchstone, Bernays 4040 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270 rocky.feemster@tbjbs.com Robert W. Hammer 300 Legacy Downs Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76126 robert@rhammerlaw.com JS ____________________________________________ John D. Sloan, Jr. 4820-5842-7195, v. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE, OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC.’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 11 Exhibit 1 · · · · · · · · · ··CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 ·· ··JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY· ··) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ··AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO JOHN··) ··DOE II, A MINOR· · · · · · ·) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··) · · · ·Plaintiffs,· · · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··) ··VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··) ··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.· · · · · ··) 44TH-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT ·· ··******************************************************* ·· ·· · · · · · · ··ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · · ··JANUARY 15, 2016 ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · ··VOLUME II ·· ··******************************************************* ·· · · · ·ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF , ·· ··produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendants ·· ··The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, ·· ··Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, and ·· ··Alexander A. Anderson, Individually and duly sworn, was ·· ··taken in the above-styled and -numbered cause on the ·· ··15th day of January, 2016, from 10:55 a.m. to 12:57 ·· ··p.m., before Chrissa K. Hollingsworth, CSR in and for PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 42 * * * VOLUME II ·1··the teacher's aide keeping an eye on your son, correct? ·2·· · · · · · · ·MR. SLOAN:··Objection, form.··You can ·3··answer. ·4·· · ··A.··No, not that day. ·5·· · ··Q.··(By Mr. Parks)··Okay.··Other than the day at ·6··Ripley's, any other time that your son was in the ·7··presence of anyone from the Anderson school, those red ·8··flags were on your mind, correct? ·9·· · · · · · · ·MR. SLOAN:··Objection, form.··Go ahead. 10·· · ··A.··Yes. 11·· · ··Q.··(By Mr. Parks)··Okay.··What was it about the 12··day at Ripley's the 31st of October that caused you not 13··to have those red flags on your mind? 14·· · ··A.··The five or six other parent chaperones that 15··were there that day, being out of that school, being in 16··a public place that you -- that you believe you're being 17··watched and believe that there's video cameras 18··everywhere. 19·· · ··Q.··So the -- your belief that there was video 20··cameras everywhere completely removed from your mind 21··that day any concerns regarding the red flags that you 22··were aware of prior to the 31st? 23·· · · · · · · ·MR. SLOAN:··Objection, form. 24·· · ··Q.··(By Mr. Parks)··Is that correct? 25·· · ··A.··No.··It -- no, but it did comfort me to know PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Exhibit 2 · · · · · · · · · · · CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 · · JOHN DOE I, Individually and as· · ·)· ··IN THE DISTRICT COURT · Next Friend of JOHN DOE II, a· · · ·) · Minor,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · · ·· Plaintiffs,· · · · · · · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)· ··44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · 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 · · *************************************************************** · · · · · · · · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF · · · · · · · · · · · · · · RACHEL ROTELLA · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· NOVEMBER 24, 2015 · · · *************************************************************** · · · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RACHEL ROTELLA, produced · · as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiffs, and duly sworn, · · was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 24th · · day of November, 2015, from 10:08 a.m. to 3:18 p.m., before · · Cheryl K. Perlich, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported · · by machine shorthand, at the law offices of Walters, Balido & · · Crain, LLP, located at 10440 North Central Expressway, Suite · · 1500, Dallas, Texas 75231, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil · · Procedure. PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 82 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1··of everything that's in the handbook, but it's not location ·2··specific. ·3·· · ··Q.· ·And when you say produced very recently, when was -- ·4··when did it come about? ·5·· · ··A.· ·I know it was in 2015, the beginning of the year. ·6·· · ··Q.· ·Okay.··So prior to October 31, 2014, you had not ·7··received any formal or informal training for guest safety; is ·8··that fair? ·9·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 10·· · ··Q.· ·And if I was to ask you what safety training you 11··received in your career for child guest safety prior to 12··October 31, 2014, your answer would be none? 13·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 14·· · ··Q.· ·Would you agree with me that Ripley's caters to 15··children as guests? 16·· · ··A.· ·Yes, yes, all sorts of families. 17·· · ··Q.· ·Yeah.··And your website has pictures of children, 18··yes? 19·· · ··A.· ·I'm not sure.··I can't remember.··I think so, but I 20··don't remember. 21·· · ··Q.· ·Kids under free -- kids under four are free? 22·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 23·· · ··Q.· ·Your company caters to field trips with kids? 24·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 25·· · ··Q.· ·It's safe to say that you certainly expect children PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 86 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1·· · ··Q.· ·Is there a protocol at Ripley's Believe It or Not ·2··Grand Prairie for employees to call someone if there are too ·3··many guests at the site at one time? ·4·· · ··A.· ·No, not that I'm aware of. ·5·· · ··Q.· ·And it's my understanding that as an attraction, it's ·6··possible you could have two people there or you could have 50 ·7··people walk in the door; is that true? ·8·· · ··A.· ·Yes. ·9·· · ··Q.· ·Is there -- and so based upon your previous answer, 10··it's my understanding that there's no protocol at all for an 11··employee to call somebody if they think that there's too many 12··people there? 13·· · ··A.· ·No. 14·· · ··Q.· ·Is there a standard number of employees you'd like to 15··have on site per number of patrons? 16·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 17·· · ··Q.· ·What's the number? 18·· · ··A.· ·We determine -- well, no, there's not a standard.··We 19··determine our schedule based off years past.··So when we create 20··our schedule, for example, on a Saturday/Sunday, we're going to 21··have the proper amount of staff for the volume that we know 22··would most likely come in. 23·· · ··Q.· ·And what -- what do you try and work out the ratios 24··between employees and potential guests? 25·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Objection, form. PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 88 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1·· · ··A.· ·No. ·2·· · ··Q.· ·It's Ripley's Believe It or Not's policy not to have ·3··any staff in attractions; is that fair? ·4·· · ··A.· ·I don't know if it's the policy. ·5·· · ··Q.· ·Well, it's certainly not Ripley's Believe It or Not's ·6··policy to have them in the attractions; is that fair? ·7·· · ··A.· ·To have -- is there a policy saying we have to have ·8··staff in the attractions? ·9·· · ··Q.· ·At any time, yes. 10·· · ··A.· ·I don't -- I don't believe so.··I don't know. 11·· · ··Q.· ·In other words, you listed me areas where the staff 12··needs to be, but you didn't list any attractions. 13·· · ··A.· ·Right. 14·· · ··Q.· ·And that wasn't an omission, that was on purpose that 15··you didn't list them, true? 16·· · ··A.· ·True.··We do not have staff.··We don't have someone 17··inside the attraction. 18·· · ··Q.· ·Why? 19·· · ··A.· ·We do not have revenue areas inside the attractions. 20··The attractions run themselves.··It's not a tour, it's a 21··self-guided tour. 22·· · ··Q.· ·What about for safety of guests? 23·· · ··A.· ·We've never had safety issues. 24·· · · · · · · ··MR. SLOAN:··Objection, nonresponsive. 25·· · ··Q.· ·Do you think that it's necessary to have an employee PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 118 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1·· · ··Q.· ·And is that for employee theft? ·2·· · ··A.· ·Any reason, to see if they're horseplaying.··It's ·3··just angles that we didn't have, you know, that we had ·4··employees working. ·5·· · ··Q.· ·But the reason that you added them, I want to see if ·6··I can get the universe of reasons, was employee theft? ·7·· · ··A.· ·(Moving head up and down) ·8·· · ··Q.· ·Yes? ·9·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 10·· · ··Q.· ·Horseplay? 11·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 12·· · ··Q.· ·What other reasons? 13·· · ··A.· ·Just to make sure they're doing what they're being 14··paid to do. 15·· · ··Q.· ·Was part of it so that the employees knew there were 16··cameras -- extra cameras watching them? 17·· · ··A.· ·No. 18·· · ··Q.· ·Did they know that? 19·· · ··A.· ·I don't believe so, no. 20·· · ··Q.· ·Let's pull up Exhibit 38 again.··You should have it. 21·· · ··A.· ·Okay. 22·· · ··Q.· ·It's that floor plan. 23·· · ··A.· ·Thirty-eight? 24·· · ··Q.· ·Yeah. 25·· · ··A.· ·Okay.··Got it. PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 122 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1·· · ··Q.· ·And there's cameras in both back of houses all ·2··yellow, correct? ·3·· · ··A.· ·Yes, yes. ·4·· · ··Q.· ·There are no cameras in the Ripley's Believe It or ·5··Not, true? ·6·· · ··A.· ·True. ·7·· · ··Q.· ·Is that -- and there's no cameras inside the Mirror ·8··Maze, correct? ·9·· · ··A.· ·Correct. 10·· · ··Q.· ·Are those the only two places where there are no 11··cameras inside the attractions? 12·· · ··A.· ·The LaseRace. 13·· · ··Q.· ·And the LaseRace? 14·· · ··A.· ·(Moving head up and down) 15·· · ··Q.· ·What discussions have you ever had with anyone as to 16··whether there needs to be cameras inside all the attractions? 17·· · ··A.· ·I have not. 18·· · ··Q.· ·Do you think it's necessary? 19·· · ··A.· ·No.··We haven't had any reason to believe so. 20·· · ··Q.· ·But it's fair to say there is -- there's no 21··electronic monitoring in either the Ripley's Believe It or Not 22··or the Mirror Maze, true? 23·· · ··A.· ·True. 24·· · ··Q.· ·And speaking of monitoring, is there someone at 25··Ripley's Believe It or Not Grand Prairie that actually monitors PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 127 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1··refresh.··I bet you if you pull down, it refreshes.··Let's go ·2··back down and see if it popped up.··Here, let me see. ·3·· · · · · · · ··THE WITNESS:··(Tenders tablet to attorney) ·4·· · ··A.· ·Yeah, at the entrance.··I forgot. ·5·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··She can look at mine, if you want ·6··to. ·7·· · · · · · · ··MR. SLOAN:··Okay.··Oh, there it is. ·8·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··You've got it now. ·9·· · · · · · · ··THE WITNESS:··Oh, okay.··Thank you. 10·· · ··Q.· ·This sign is at the entrance for every car that 11··drives through into your parking lot, correct? 12·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 13·· · ··Q.· ·And it says, For the security of our guests, these 14··premises are being electronically monitored 24 hours a day, 15··correct? 16·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 17·· · ··Q.· ·Was that sign there on October 31, 2014? 18·· · ··A.· ·Yes, I believe so. 19·· · ··Q.· ·So when I asked you whether or not Ripley's 20··represents to each and every one of its guests whether -- that 21··it actually monitors them electronically for their safety 22··24 hours a day at all times -- 23·· · ··A.· ·Yeah. 24·· · ··Q.· ·-- they do, don't they? 25·· · ··A.· ·Yes.··I'm sorry.··I forgot.··I forgot that one was PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 128 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1··there. ·2·· · ··Q.· ·That's okay. ·3·· · ··A.· ·I was thinking about in the lobby but... ·4·· · ··Q.· ·You would agree with me that guests that are in ·5··Ripley's Believe It or Not, the area, Ripley's Believe It or ·6··Not, are not being electronically monitored, are they? ·7·· · ··A.· ·Inside the Ripley's Believe It or Not? ·8·· · ··Q.· ·Yes. ·9·· · ··A.· ·No. 10·· · ··Q.· ·I want to talk about 2MCCTV. 11·· · ··A.· ·Sure. 12·· · ··Q.· ·Are they the only company that Ripley's has dealt 13··with for closed caption -- I always say that -- closed-circuit 14··cameras since you've been there? 15·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 16·· · ··Q.· ·As far as you know, are they the only company that 17··Ripley's Believe It or Not has dealt with for closed-circuit 18··television since 2009 forward? 19·· · ··A.· ·I'm not sure. 20·· · ··Q.· ·How would you find that? 21·· · ··A.· ·To be honest, I have no idea.··We'd have to ask the 22··previous general managers, maybe they have some form of record. 23··I don't know. 24·· · ··Q.· ·Wouldn't Ripley's keep some sort of record in -- 25··don't you have some sort of security file or security vendor PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 158 RACHEL ROTELLA ·1··the Busbys and their attorneys made claims that Ripley's should ·2··have known that small children would frequent Ripley's Believe ·3··It or Not? ·4·· · ··A.· ·I don't remember the specifics, to be honest. ·5·· · ··Q.· ·Would you agree that that is a true statement, that ·6··Ripley's Entertainment, Inc. should know that small children ·7··will frequent Ripley's? ·8·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form. ·9·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 10·· · ··Q.· ·And would you agree with the statement that small 11··children frequently accompany their parents to Ripley's? 12·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 13·· · ··Q.· ·The last paragraph of that page says, Defendant knew 14··or should have known that the condition involved an 15··unreasonable risk of serious injury to small children and the 16··utility of maintaining the condition that caused Zach Busby's 17··injuries was slight as compared to the probability of injury 18··because Defendants could have very easily and relatively 19··inexpensively eliminated the risk with minimal burden.··Did I 20··read that correctly? 21·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 22·· · ··Q.· ·Did Ripley's corporate let you know that the Busbys 23··and their counsel made allegations against Ripley's that a 24··small child was injured as a result of Ripley's not taking 25··action that was relatively inexpensive to eliminate the harm? PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 · · · · · · · · · · · CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 · · JOHN DOE I, Individually and as· · ·)· ··IN THE DISTRICT COURT · Next Friend of JOHN DOE II, a· · · ·) · Minor,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · · ·· Plaintiffs,· · · · · · · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··)· ··44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · 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 · · *************************************************************** · · · · · · · · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ALEXIS GARCIA · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· DECEMBER 17, 2015 · · · *************************************************************** · · · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ALEXIS GARCIA, produced · · as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiffs, and duly sworn, · · was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 17th · · day of December, 2015, from 12:20 p.m. to 1:08 p.m., before · · Cheryl K. Perlich, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported · · by machine shorthand, at the law offices of Walters, Balido & · · Crain, LLP, located at 10440 North Central Expressway, Suite · · 1500, Dallas, Texas 75231, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil · · Procedure. PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 16 ALEXIS GARCIA ·1··Amanda Emmons your boss? ·2·· · ··A.· ·Amanda Emmons. ·3·· · ··Q.· ·Okay.··So in 2014 in October, the chain of command ·4··for you was:··You, Amanda Emmons was above you and then ·5··Ms. Rotella was above her? ·6·· · ··A.· ·Yes. ·7·· · ··Q.· ·Was Ms. Tran above you or was it more sideways, she ·8··did something else? ·9·· · ··A.· ·She did something else. 10·· · ··Q.· ·Sales and marketing? 11·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 12·· · ··Q.· ·So if you were reporting directly to somebody in 13··October of 2014, it would be Ms. Emmons? 14·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 15·· · ··Q.· ·And then back to my question:··Do you think 16··Ms. Rotella would be okay with you basically running the entire 17··area dealing with all the customers and Ms. Tran and Ms. Emmons 18··were just in their office? 19·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Objection, form. 20·· · ··A.· ·If it's a slow day, yes. 21·· · ··Q.· ·Well, but let's say there's 20 or more people there. 22··Would she be okay with that if you're running back and forth? 23·· · ··A.· ·No. 24·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form. 25·· · ··Q.· ·She wouldn't be? PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 26 ALEXIS GARCIA ·1·· · ··Q.· ·Is that fair? ·2·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form. ·3·· · ··A.· ·Yes. ·4·· · ··Q.· ·All right.··I want to ask -- because I asked about ·5··four questions there and that's why it's objectionable.··First ·6··of all, does it look like -- see how she's walking in the snack ·7··area?··I mean, excuse me, in the gift shop? ·8·· · ··A.· ·Yes. ·9·· · ··Q.· ·Does it look like you see her? 10·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 11·· · ··Q.· ·And that's why you know that you can leave your area, 12··because she's coming? 13·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 14·· · ··Q.· ·And then because of that, you then run in a hurry, 15··true? 16·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 17·· · ··Q.· ·Back to the gift shop area, you're running, all the 18··way back to the gift shop area, aren't you?··True? 19·· · ··A.· ·Snack bar, yes. 20·· · ··Q.· ·Snack bar.··I'm sorry.··I'm saying gift shop.··You're 21··right, snack bar.··You ran from your ticket area all the way to 22··the snack bar area so you could finally help the customers, 23··true? 24·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 25·· · ··Q.· ·All right.··Has it ever been part of your job to look PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606 Page 34 ALEXIS GARCIA ·1··that Ms. Tran may have stolen some things? ·2·· · ··A.· ·I am aware about that, yes. ·3·· · ··Q.· ·What do you know about it? ·4·· · ··A.· ·Just that she stole money. ·5·· · ··Q.· ·And how much money is claimed that she stole, do you ·6··know? ·7·· · ··A.· ·I don't know. ·8·· · ··Q.· ·Do you have even a ballpark? ·9·· · ··A.· ·No. 10·· · ··Q.· ·Is it your understanding that the reason the 11··surveillance cameras are at Ripley's is to protect Ripley's 12··from employees or guests stealing things? 13·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form. 14·· · ··A.· ·No. 15·· · ··Q.· ·Why do you think they're there? 16·· · · · · · · ··MR. PARKS:··Form. 17·· · ··A.· ·As a manager, to make sure our staff is doing their 18··job. 19·· · ··Q.· ·Anything else?··Any other reason than that? 20·· · ··A.· ·None that I can think of. 21·· · ··Q.· ·And nobody has told -- nobody from Ripley's has told 22··you that the security cameras are there for any other reason 23··than to make sure that staff is doing their job? 24·· · ··A.· ·Yes. 25·· · ··Q.· ·That's true? PERLICH REPORTING SERVICES 469.939.5606