Preview
FILED
7/31/2023 3:56 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Debra Clark DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885
CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR. AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LOLA BRIDGETTE WOOD
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
134 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC A/K/A
BMC TEXAS SALES, LLC, BUILDERS
FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC
SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A
RICHARDSON TIMBERS, RIDGEVIEW
TIMBERWORKS LLC
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
FROM DEFENDANT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC
incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC
Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood (“Plaintiffs”) files this
Motion to Compel Defendant BFS Texas Sales, LLC f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, LLC, incorrectly
sued as Builders First Source Dallas, LLC (BFS) to Answer Discovery respectfully showing the
Court as follows:
1 This case is governed by a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan. TRCP 190.4
2. This lawsuit seeks damages for the failure and collapse of two Plaza structures
on Plaintiffs’ property on Nov. 4, 2022 (the evidence suggests the trusses failed
and caused the Plaza Structures to collapse or become structurally unsafe)
Plaintiffs paid $101,770 to BFS for the design, engineering, and manufacturing
of the trusses for the two Plaza structures. Plaintiffs’ engineer retained to
investigate the failure of the Plaza structures, determined the cross members
of the trusses failed because they were not manufactured and engineered
correctly.
Defendant BFS’s Discovery Responses are replete with boilerplate, evasive
objections to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.
Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant BFS to amend its discovery
responses to Plaintiffs by removing baseless and prophylactic objections and
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS —- PAGE 1
fully answer Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests in accordance with the spirit of
Rules 196 and 197 of the TRCP.
I
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
11 Plaintiffs paid $101,770 to Builders FirstSource for the design, engineering, and
manufacturing of the beams, rafters, and trusses for the two Plaza structures erected on Plaintiff's
property in October-November 2022 timeframe. After the two Plaza structures failed, Plaintiffs
hired an engineer to investigate the failure of the Plaza structures and it was determined the cross
members of the trusses failed because they were not manufactured and engineered correctly.
1.2 After Builders FirstSource and its subcontractors failed to step up and fix, repair
and/or compensate the Plaintiffs for the failure of the two Plaza structures, Plaintiffs filed suit on
February 27, 2027 against Builders FirstSource and its subcontractors, Sawmill Partners, LLC dba
Richardson Timbers (Sawmill) and Ridgeview Timberworks (Ridgeview).
1.2 This lawsuit seeks to recover damages of $250,000 to $1,000,000 plus prejudgment
interest and attorney’s fees for Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendants for breach of contract,
DTPA violations, negligent construction, breach of express and implied warranties, mental
anguish and exemplary damage owed to Plaintiffs.
1S Defendant BFS Texas Sales, LLC filed an Answer and entered an appearance in
the lawsuit.
1.4 Plaintiffs served discovery requests on Defendant BFS. On June 19, 2023,
Defendant BFS’s objections and responses were served and are attached hereto as the following
exhibits and incorporated herein by reference:
Exhibit A: Defendant BFS Texas Sales LLC f/ka BMC Texas Sales LLC
incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas’s Responses and/or
Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Request for
Production;
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 2
Exhibit B: Defendant BFS Texas Sales LLC f/ka BMC Texas Sales LLC
incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas’s Answers and/or
Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of
Interrogatories.
1.5 Defendant BFS’s discovery responses are replete with boilerplate, evasive
objections, and incomplete discovery responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests. BFS’s discovery
responses failed to provide information and documents requested by Plaintiffs and needed for
Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their lawsuit.
1.6 Defendant BFS’s discovery responses are filled with harassing and prophylactic
objections that evade Plaintiffs’ attempt at discovery requests allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.
(a) Responses to Requests for Production.
The categories of the information requested by Plaintiff from BFS are as follows:
Category I documents and communications identifying and indicating BFS employees,
vendors, products, involvement, and scope of work: RFP 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 82, 84, 85,
88, 89 and 95.
Category 2 documents regarding engineering, designing, specifications quality control and
code requirements for trusses, beams, and rafters: RFP 7, 8, 8[sic], 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32,
34, 52 and 79.
Category 3 documents regarding why Plaza structures failed, repair costs or why Plaintiff
claims fail and BFS request for Attorney fees: RFP 41, 42, 46, 55, 57, 58, 59, 75, 77, 78, 80, 83,
87, 90 and 91.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 3
Category 4 documents regarding insurance coverage, reservation of rights, indemnity
obligations and demands: RFP 43, 54, 71, 72 and 81.
Category 5 BFS’ prior substantially similar claims or litigation or documents relied on to
answer interrogatories: RFP 56 and 74,
Category 6 documents regarding affirmative defenses, tangible objects, trial exhibits and
trial witnesses: RFP 60, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76, 92 and 93.
1.7 BFS provides boilerplate objections to 92 of the 95 requests for production claiming
the requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial'; BFS prophylactically objects to 60 of 95 requests, and then globally refers to BFS
documents BFS 0001-044, without specifying which specific bates stamped documents are
responsive to the individual requests.? BFS evasively objects to 88 of 95 requests that the
information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of
discovery’, but BFS has failed to provide any specific facts in support of this baseless objection.
BFS prophylactically objected to Requests Nos, 15, 16, 26, 28, 54, 55, 56, 76, 80, 81, without
identifying if BFS has responsive documents. Additionally, out of BFS documents 0001-80, 40
pages comprised of documents of correspondence with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ demand
letter and Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. BFS has failed to provide documentation setting forth the relationship
* Exhibit A: See RFPs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 34,35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,
62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93, 94, 95
2 Idat See RFPs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95
31,3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 4
between BFS, and its subcontractors, Sawmill and Ridgeways, and any documentation regarding
the failure of the trusses of the Plaza structures.
(b) Answers to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s (CDW) Interrogatories.
The categories of the information requested by Plaintiff from BFS are as follows:
Category 1 description of each vendors products, involvement, and scope of work:
Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5,21 and 22.
Category 2 description for engineering, designing and quality control for trusses.
Interrogatories 4 and 7.
Category 3 description of why Plaza structures failed or why Plaintiff claims fail
Interrogatory 8, 18, 20 and 24.
Category 4 description of facts supporting affirmative defenses and trial witnesses
Interrogatory 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 25.
1.8 BFS objected to all of Plaintiff CDW’s 25 interrogatories. BFS provides the
boilerplate objections that the Interrogatories were overly broad and unduly burdensome to 19 of
the 25 Interrogatories*. Plaintiff CDW asked contention interrogatories pursuant to T.R.C.P.
197.15 to which BFS improperly claims the Interrogatories exceed the scope of the Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 197.1. BFS lodges multiple objections to CDW’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,
7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 25 including objecting that the interrogatory
“constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable
particularity the information/documents.” BFS prophylactically objects that the Interrogatory is
overly broad as a matter of law to 13 of the 25 interrogatories.° Further BFS objects to
4 See Exhibit B, Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24.
5 Id Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24
© Id Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 11-18, 24
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 5
Interrogatory Nos. 5, 8 regarding communications discussing the Project and the failure of the
Plaza structure as “vague and ambiguous.’
1.9 Defendant BFS’s baseless and boilerplate objections fail to meet the standards set
forth in Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2 Therefore, Plaintiffs move the Court to overrule Defendant BFS’s
baseless, prophylactic objections and fully and completely answer Plaintiff Charles David Wood,
Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25.
II.
GROUNDS FOR MOTION
2.1 The purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to obtain full knowledge of the
issues and facts of the lawsuit before trial. West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 243 (Tex. 1978).
Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” In re CSX Corp., 124 8.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). The party objecting to
discovery “must present any evidence necessary to support the objection.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a).
2.2 To object to a discovery request, the responding party must make a timely objection
in writing and “state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which
the party is refusing to comply with the request.” Jn re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex.
2002) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a)). A trial court does not clearly abuse its discretion in ordering
the production of documents when the party from whom production is sought does not meet its
burden to support its objection under the rules of civil procedure governing discovery. /d.
Des) T.R.C.P. 197.1 permits a party to serve contention interrogatories to inquire
whether a party makes a specific legal or factual contention and may ask the responding party to
state the legal theories and to describe in general the factual bases for the party’s claims or
defenses. Plaintiffs’ contention interrogatories adhered to T.R.C.P. 197.1.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 6
2.4 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1 (b), Plaintiffs file this motion on the grounds that
Defendant BFS served improper objections and failed to fully and properly respond to Plaintiffs’
First Request for Production and fully produce responsive documents.
2.5 Defendant BFS’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production are baseless,
boilerplate and are merely prophylactic. Plaintiffs move the Court to (1) compel Defendant BFS
to remove its objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93 and 95 and amend the individual responses by fully complying with TRCP 196.2(b)(4) stating
if Defendant has no responsive documents; (2) compel BFS to remove its prophylactic objections;
(3) amend its responses identifying if BFS has responsive documents and produce them; (4)
identify what documents are responsive to each individual request by identifying the specific bates
stamp; and (3) remove its objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos 2, 5, 33 and state
whether or not BFS has responsive documents and if so, produce responsive documents.
2.6 Plaintiffs are entitled to know Defendant BFS’s version of the relevant facts
surrounding the parties’ communications, the agreements and contracts entered between Builders
FirstSource, Sawmill and Ridgeway and the BFS’ understanding of why the two Plaza structures
failed on November 4, 2022. BFS’s objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of
Interrogatories are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning the basic facts surrounding the parties’
understanding why the two Plaza structures failed and who are the responsible parties. The
purpose of discovery is to seek the truth so disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not
by what the facts conceal. See Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W. 550, 555 (Tex. 1990).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 7
Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case. T.R.C.P.
192.3(a). Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
2.7 Further, BFS prophylactically objects to each of Plaintiffs contention
interrogatories on the grounds the interrogatories seek to have BFS marshal its evidence, are overly
broad and exceed the scope of discovery, among other objections. Plaintiff's contention
interrogatories ask BFS to identify specific facts demonstrating specific allegations made by BFS
in its pleadings. Plaintiff's interrogatories fall within the parameters of TRCP Rule 197.1 and do
not require a marshaling of evidence. See Jn re Sting Soccer Grp., LP, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197
(Tex. App. — Dallas, no pet.); In re Swepi L.P., 103 S.W.3d 578, 590 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003,
orig. proceeding. Further BFS cannot avoid providing facts by assuming [the requesting party] is
asking for more than the rules allow. See Sheffield Dev.,2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10599, 2012 WL
6632500. Interrogatories seeking facts underlying the opposing party’s claims serve the very
purpose of discovery and did not require a marshaling of evidence. In re Sting Soccer Grp., LP,
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197, 2017 WL 5897454. BFS’s objections are obstructive to Plaintiffs’
learning the facts surrounding BFS’s defenses and claims in the case. Plaintiffs asked contention
interrogatories within the scope of Rule 197.1.
2.8 For these reasons, Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant BFS to remove
its objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories and to answer these
interrogatories fully and completely and remove its objections and fully respond to Plaintiffs
Requests For Production. BFS’ co-defendants have also produced BFS documents that BFS has
failed to produce indicating that BFS has not taken the discovery in this case seriously.
iil.
PRAYER
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 8
FOR THESE REASONS, Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood
ask the Court to Order enter an order compelling Defendant BFS Texas Sales, LLC f/k/a BMC
Texas Sales, LLC, incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas, LLC to amend its discovery
responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests by:
1) Withdraw objections to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95 and identify by individual bates stamp which
of Defendant BFS documents are responsive documents;
2) Withdraw objections to Requests for Production Nos. 34, 42, 43, 51, 75, 92, 93, , 95
and completely answer if Defendant has responsive documents by identifying specific
bates stamp and producing responsive documents;
3) Withdraw objections to Requests for Production Nos. 15, 16, 26, 28, 54, 55, 56, 76, 80,
81 and identify if BFS has responsive documents and if so, produce responsive
documents;
4) Withdraw objections Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 and fully and
completely answer; and
Plaintiffs move for further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William E. Reid
WILLIAM E. REID
State Bar No. 16748500
wreid@reiddennis.com
edocsnotifications@reiddennis.com
REID DENNIS & FRICK, P.C.
2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
Frisco, Texas 75034
Telephone: 214-618-1400
Facsimile: 214-618-1653
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS - PAGE 9
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
On June 23, 2023, I personally conferred with Ian McLin, counsel for BFS Texas Sales,
LLC f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, LLC, incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas, LLC, and
discussed the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Thereafter the attorneys have communicated
by email and have been unable to reach an agreement and reach a resolution regarding this
discovery matter without the Court’s intervention. Accordingly, this matter is presented to the
Court for determination.
Certified to on this 31% day of July 2023.
/s/ William E. Reid
WILLIAM E. REID
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on31‘ th day ofJuly 2023 a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing document was efiled and e-served on all counsel of record in accordance with
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
/s/ William E. Reid
William E. Reid
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 10
26147.0033
CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885
CHARLES DAvID Woon Jr. and IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LOLA BRIDGETTE WOOD
134™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
vs.
BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC;
SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON
TIMBERS; RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS LLC DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC.
incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS’
RESPONSES AND/OR OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF,
CHARLES DAVID WOOD, JR.’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO. Plaintiff, CHARLES DAVID WOOD, JR.
By and through his Attorney of Record:
Mr. William E. Reid
REID DENNIS & FRICK, P.C.
2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
Frisco, Texas 75034
NOW COMES BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC, incorrectly sued as
BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC (hereinafter “BFS”); Defendant herein and serves its
Responses and/or Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr.’s First Request for Production
pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[REMAINDER PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]
BFS’ Resp to PL David's RFP Page 1 of 63
26147.0033
Respectfully submitted,
LANGLEY & BANACK
745 E. Mulberry, Suite 900
San Antonio, Texas 78212
(210) 736-6600
(210) 735-6889 facsimile
by, oa
IAN M. McLIN
State Bar No. 24005071
imclin@langleybanack.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a
BMC TEXas SALES LLC, incorrectly sued as
BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been delivered in
accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(a) on this the 19" day of June, 2023, to the following counsel
of record:
Via E-Service: edocsnotifications@reiddennis.com
Mr. William E. Reid
REID DENNIS & FRICK
2600 Cole Avenue, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75204
Counsel for Plaintiffs, Charles David Wood Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood
Via E-Service: mail@rlattorneys.com
Mr. Mark S. Senter
Ms. Ciera Norris
RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
2425 N. Central Expressway, Suite 231
Richardson, Texas 75080
Counsel for Defendant, Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers
oa
IAN M. McLIN
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP. Page 2 of 63
26147.0033
DEFENDANT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC,
incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS’
RESPONSES AND/OR OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF,
CHARLES DAVID WOOD, JR.’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
NOTE: All documents produced herein (BFS 0001-0044) are available for review and
download through the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3z5age94b4ftdka/AADz0_eAZcjBaM50ljpULXZda?dl=0
REQUEST NO. 1: Please produce each and every document that identifies the employees or
workers of Builders that were involved in selling the beams, rafters and trusses to Bella or the
Woods for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Objection, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection to the disclosure of private and personal information as the requesting party seeks
confidential and private information which would compromise the integrity of Respondent’s,
or its employees’, personal data, finances, and physical security.
Objection, the request calls for information or documentation protected under HIPAA. Upon
receipt of a proper release of information compliant with HIPAA requirements from requestor,
respondent will supplement to respond/produce those documents, to the extent they exist and/or
in the possession of respondent.
Objection, overly broad, burdensome and harassing and seeks information which is
irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Objection, not reasonably limited in scope or time period.
Production of such information would require hundreds of man-hours and excessive
resources and expenses.
Respondent objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad as a matter of law.
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “each and every document” is overbroad and
non-specific on its face.
Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and
is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this
regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request
no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case.
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 3 of 63
26147.0033
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 2: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and Bella
regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 3: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and Sawmill
regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of
information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product/ trial
strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF
EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 313 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012).
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 4: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and
Ridgeview regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of
information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial
strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF
EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 373 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012).
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 4 of 63
26147.0033
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 5: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and the
Woods regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 6: Please produce any and all communications by Builders with Truett Hunt
and/or Daniel Zipperlen regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 7: Please produce the engineering plans and design specifications that were
used to design and prepare the shop drawings that were used to construct the beams, rafters and
trusses that were provided to the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Respondent objects to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents and/or tangible items that are not
within the possession, custody or control of the Respondents.
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 5 of 63
26147.0033
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Further, Respondent objects as the request is unduly burdensome because the
discovery can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome
and/or less expensive, including from the requestor’s own records. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(a). Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not
proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96),
including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 8: Please produce the original design plans, specification and shop drawings
used to create, reviewed or used by Builders or others to construct the beams, rafters and trusses
that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE:
Respondent objects to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents and/or tangible items that are not
within the possession, custody or control of the Respondents.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Further, Respondent objects as the request is unduly burdensome because the
discovery can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome
and/or less expensive, including from the requestor’s own records. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(a). Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not
proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96),
including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 8{sic]: Please produce any amendments, modifications or changes to the
design plans, specification and shop drawings that were used to create, reviewed or used by
Builders or others to construct the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods’
Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 6 of 63
26147.0033
RESPONSE:
Respondent objects to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents and/or tangible items that are not
within the possession, custody or control of the Respondents.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 9: All letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars,
daytimers, or similar compilations of information kept manually by Emilio Cantu or stored
electronically regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided by Builders for the
Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE:
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “all letters, memoranda, notes,
correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of
information” is overbroad and non-specific on its face.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 7 of 63
26147.0033
REQUEST NO. 10: All letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries,
alendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of information that were obtained by Builders during
the core sample testing performed at the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston
Court, Dallas, Texas 75220 on or about February 28, 2023.
RESPONSE:
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “all letters, memoranda, notes,
correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of
information” is overbroad and non-specific on its face.
Objection, “[a] party may request another party to designate and disclose information
concerning a testifying expert witness only through a request for disclosure under Rule 194
and through depositions and reports as permitted by” TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
195. Requestor’s request for the production of information and preparation of reports by
testifying expert witnesses through a request for production is improper and prohibited by
the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 11: Please produce each and every document that identifies any changes made
by Builders, Sawmill, and/or Ridgeview and/or their employees and/or workers to the labor,
equipment, materials, method and procedures used to construct the Plaza Structure Project prior to
the construction of the Plaza Structures in July 2022.
RESPONSE:
Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of
information protected by the attorney work product/ trial strategy privilege. See TEXAS
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2).
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 8 of 63
26147.0033
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “each and every document” is overbroad and
non-specific on its face.
Objection, “[a] party may request another party to designate and disclose information
concerning a testifying expert witness only through a request for disclosure under Rule 194
and through depositions and reports as permitted by” TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
195. Requestor’s request for the production of information and preparation of reports by
testifying expert witnesses through a request for production is improper and prohibited by
the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 12: Please produce copies of any and any [sic] agreements, all
communications, correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications
between Defendant Sawmill and Builders regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were
provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project or pertaining to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project
located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE:
Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of
information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial
strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF
EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 313 8.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012).
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 9 of 63
26147.0033
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “any and any” [sic] is overbroad and non-
specific on its face.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 13: Please produce copies of any and any agreements, all communications,
correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications between
Defendant Ridgeview and Builders regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to
the Woods Plaza Structure Project or pertaining to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at
5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE:
Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of
information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial
strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF
EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); Jn re XL Specialty Ins., 373 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012).
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “any and any” [sic] is overbroad and non-
specific on its face.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the
proportional needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows:
BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 10 of 63
26147.0033
Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044.
REQUEST NO. 14: Please produce copies of any and any agreements, all communications,
correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications between
Defendant Ridgeview and Sawmill or Builders regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were
provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project or pertaining to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project
located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE:
Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of
information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial
strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF
EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 313 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012).
Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition
and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the
information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response
thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin vy. Martin, 776
S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “any and any” [sic] is overbroad and non-
specific on its face.
Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the
needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including
two requests ma
Preview
FILED 7/31/2023 3:56 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Debra Clark DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885 CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR. AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT LOLA BRIDGETTE WOOD Plaintiffs, Vv. 134 JUDICIAL DISTRICT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC A/K/A BMC TEXAS SALES, LLC, BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS, RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS LLC Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood (“Plaintiffs”) files this Motion to Compel Defendant BFS Texas Sales, LLC f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, LLC, incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas, LLC (BFS) to Answer Discovery respectfully showing the Court as follows: 1 This case is governed by a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan. TRCP 190.4 2. This lawsuit seeks damages for the failure and collapse of two Plaza structures on Plaintiffs’ property on Nov. 4, 2022 (the evidence suggests the trusses failed and caused the Plaza Structures to collapse or become structurally unsafe) Plaintiffs paid $101,770 to BFS for the design, engineering, and manufacturing of the trusses for the two Plaza structures. Plaintiffs’ engineer retained to investigate the failure of the Plaza structures, determined the cross members of the trusses failed because they were not manufactured and engineered correctly. Defendant BFS’s Discovery Responses are replete with boilerplate, evasive objections to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests. Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant BFS to amend its discovery responses to Plaintiffs by removing baseless and prophylactic objections and PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS —- PAGE 1 fully answer Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests in accordance with the spirit of Rules 196 and 197 of the TRCP. I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 11 Plaintiffs paid $101,770 to Builders FirstSource for the design, engineering, and manufacturing of the beams, rafters, and trusses for the two Plaza structures erected on Plaintiff's property in October-November 2022 timeframe. After the two Plaza structures failed, Plaintiffs hired an engineer to investigate the failure of the Plaza structures and it was determined the cross members of the trusses failed because they were not manufactured and engineered correctly. 1.2 After Builders FirstSource and its subcontractors failed to step up and fix, repair and/or compensate the Plaintiffs for the failure of the two Plaza structures, Plaintiffs filed suit on February 27, 2027 against Builders FirstSource and its subcontractors, Sawmill Partners, LLC dba Richardson Timbers (Sawmill) and Ridgeview Timberworks (Ridgeview). 1.2 This lawsuit seeks to recover damages of $250,000 to $1,000,000 plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees for Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendants for breach of contract, DTPA violations, negligent construction, breach of express and implied warranties, mental anguish and exemplary damage owed to Plaintiffs. 1S Defendant BFS Texas Sales, LLC filed an Answer and entered an appearance in the lawsuit. 1.4 Plaintiffs served discovery requests on Defendant BFS. On June 19, 2023, Defendant BFS’s objections and responses were served and are attached hereto as the following exhibits and incorporated herein by reference: Exhibit A: Defendant BFS Texas Sales LLC f/ka BMC Texas Sales LLC incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas’s Responses and/or Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Request for Production; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 2 Exhibit B: Defendant BFS Texas Sales LLC f/ka BMC Texas Sales LLC incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas’s Answers and/or Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories. 1.5 Defendant BFS’s discovery responses are replete with boilerplate, evasive objections, and incomplete discovery responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests. BFS’s discovery responses failed to provide information and documents requested by Plaintiffs and needed for Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their lawsuit. 1.6 Defendant BFS’s discovery responses are filled with harassing and prophylactic objections that evade Plaintiffs’ attempt at discovery requests allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. (a) Responses to Requests for Production. The categories of the information requested by Plaintiff from BFS are as follows: Category I documents and communications identifying and indicating BFS employees, vendors, products, involvement, and scope of work: RFP 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89 and 95. Category 2 documents regarding engineering, designing, specifications quality control and code requirements for trusses, beams, and rafters: RFP 7, 8, 8[sic], 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34, 52 and 79. Category 3 documents regarding why Plaza structures failed, repair costs or why Plaintiff claims fail and BFS request for Attorney fees: RFP 41, 42, 46, 55, 57, 58, 59, 75, 77, 78, 80, 83, 87, 90 and 91. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 3 Category 4 documents regarding insurance coverage, reservation of rights, indemnity obligations and demands: RFP 43, 54, 71, 72 and 81. Category 5 BFS’ prior substantially similar claims or litigation or documents relied on to answer interrogatories: RFP 56 and 74, Category 6 documents regarding affirmative defenses, tangible objects, trial exhibits and trial witnesses: RFP 60, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76, 92 and 93. 1.7 BFS provides boilerplate objections to 92 of the 95 requests for production claiming the requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial'; BFS prophylactically objects to 60 of 95 requests, and then globally refers to BFS documents BFS 0001-044, without specifying which specific bates stamped documents are responsive to the individual requests.? BFS evasively objects to 88 of 95 requests that the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery’, but BFS has failed to provide any specific facts in support of this baseless objection. BFS prophylactically objected to Requests Nos, 15, 16, 26, 28, 54, 55, 56, 76, 80, 81, without identifying if BFS has responsive documents. Additionally, out of BFS documents 0001-80, 40 pages comprised of documents of correspondence with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ demand letter and Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. BFS has failed to provide documentation setting forth the relationship * Exhibit A: See RFPs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34,35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 2 Idat See RFPs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 31,3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 4 between BFS, and its subcontractors, Sawmill and Ridgeways, and any documentation regarding the failure of the trusses of the Plaza structures. (b) Answers to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s (CDW) Interrogatories. The categories of the information requested by Plaintiff from BFS are as follows: Category 1 description of each vendors products, involvement, and scope of work: Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5,21 and 22. Category 2 description for engineering, designing and quality control for trusses. Interrogatories 4 and 7. Category 3 description of why Plaza structures failed or why Plaintiff claims fail Interrogatory 8, 18, 20 and 24. Category 4 description of facts supporting affirmative defenses and trial witnesses Interrogatory 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 25. 1.8 BFS objected to all of Plaintiff CDW’s 25 interrogatories. BFS provides the boilerplate objections that the Interrogatories were overly broad and unduly burdensome to 19 of the 25 Interrogatories*. Plaintiff CDW asked contention interrogatories pursuant to T.R.C.P. 197.15 to which BFS improperly claims the Interrogatories exceed the scope of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.1. BFS lodges multiple objections to CDW’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 25 including objecting that the interrogatory “constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents.” BFS prophylactically objects that the Interrogatory is overly broad as a matter of law to 13 of the 25 interrogatories.° Further BFS objects to 4 See Exhibit B, Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24. 5 Id Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24 © Id Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 11-18, 24 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 5 Interrogatory Nos. 5, 8 regarding communications discussing the Project and the failure of the Plaza structure as “vague and ambiguous.’ 1.9 Defendant BFS’s baseless and boilerplate objections fail to meet the standards set forth in Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2 Therefore, Plaintiffs move the Court to overrule Defendant BFS’s baseless, prophylactic objections and fully and completely answer Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25. II. GROUNDS FOR MOTION 2.1 The purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to obtain full knowledge of the issues and facts of the lawsuit before trial. West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 243 (Tex. 1978). Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In re CSX Corp., 124 8.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). The party objecting to discovery “must present any evidence necessary to support the objection.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a). 2.2 To object to a discovery request, the responding party must make a timely objection in writing and “state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request.” Jn re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2002) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(a)). A trial court does not clearly abuse its discretion in ordering the production of documents when the party from whom production is sought does not meet its burden to support its objection under the rules of civil procedure governing discovery. /d. Des) T.R.C.P. 197.1 permits a party to serve contention interrogatories to inquire whether a party makes a specific legal or factual contention and may ask the responding party to state the legal theories and to describe in general the factual bases for the party’s claims or defenses. Plaintiffs’ contention interrogatories adhered to T.R.C.P. 197.1. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 6 2.4 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1 (b), Plaintiffs file this motion on the grounds that Defendant BFS served improper objections and failed to fully and properly respond to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production and fully produce responsive documents. 2.5 Defendant BFS’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production are baseless, boilerplate and are merely prophylactic. Plaintiffs move the Court to (1) compel Defendant BFS to remove its objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 95 and amend the individual responses by fully complying with TRCP 196.2(b)(4) stating if Defendant has no responsive documents; (2) compel BFS to remove its prophylactic objections; (3) amend its responses identifying if BFS has responsive documents and produce them; (4) identify what documents are responsive to each individual request by identifying the specific bates stamp; and (3) remove its objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos 2, 5, 33 and state whether or not BFS has responsive documents and if so, produce responsive documents. 2.6 Plaintiffs are entitled to know Defendant BFS’s version of the relevant facts surrounding the parties’ communications, the agreements and contracts entered between Builders FirstSource, Sawmill and Ridgeway and the BFS’ understanding of why the two Plaza structures failed on November 4, 2022. BFS’s objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning the basic facts surrounding the parties’ understanding why the two Plaza structures failed and who are the responsible parties. The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth so disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what the facts conceal. See Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W. 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 7 Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case. T.R.C.P. 192.3(a). Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. 2.7 Further, BFS prophylactically objects to each of Plaintiffs contention interrogatories on the grounds the interrogatories seek to have BFS marshal its evidence, are overly broad and exceed the scope of discovery, among other objections. Plaintiff's contention interrogatories ask BFS to identify specific facts demonstrating specific allegations made by BFS in its pleadings. Plaintiff's interrogatories fall within the parameters of TRCP Rule 197.1 and do not require a marshaling of evidence. See Jn re Sting Soccer Grp., LP, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197 (Tex. App. — Dallas, no pet.); In re Swepi L.P., 103 S.W.3d 578, 590 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding. Further BFS cannot avoid providing facts by assuming [the requesting party] is asking for more than the rules allow. See Sheffield Dev.,2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10599, 2012 WL 6632500. Interrogatories seeking facts underlying the opposing party’s claims serve the very purpose of discovery and did not require a marshaling of evidence. In re Sting Soccer Grp., LP, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197, 2017 WL 5897454. BFS’s objections are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning the facts surrounding BFS’s defenses and claims in the case. Plaintiffs asked contention interrogatories within the scope of Rule 197.1. 2.8 For these reasons, Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant BFS to remove its objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories and to answer these interrogatories fully and completely and remove its objections and fully respond to Plaintiffs Requests For Production. BFS’ co-defendants have also produced BFS documents that BFS has failed to produce indicating that BFS has not taken the discovery in this case seriously. iil. PRAYER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 8 FOR THESE REASONS, Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood ask the Court to Order enter an order compelling Defendant BFS Texas Sales, LLC f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, LLC, incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas, LLC to amend its discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests by: 1) Withdraw objections to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95 and identify by individual bates stamp which of Defendant BFS documents are responsive documents; 2) Withdraw objections to Requests for Production Nos. 34, 42, 43, 51, 75, 92, 93, , 95 and completely answer if Defendant has responsive documents by identifying specific bates stamp and producing responsive documents; 3) Withdraw objections to Requests for Production Nos. 15, 16, 26, 28, 54, 55, 56, 76, 80, 81 and identify if BFS has responsive documents and if so, produce responsive documents; 4) Withdraw objections Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 and fully and completely answer; and Plaintiffs move for further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William E. Reid WILLIAM E. REID State Bar No. 16748500 wreid@reiddennis.com edocsnotifications@reiddennis.com REID DENNIS & FRICK, P.C. 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380 Frisco, Texas 75034 Telephone: 214-618-1400 Facsimile: 214-618-1653 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS - PAGE 9 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On June 23, 2023, I personally conferred with Ian McLin, counsel for BFS Texas Sales, LLC f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, LLC, incorrectly sued as Builders First Source Dallas, LLC, and discussed the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Thereafter the attorneys have communicated by email and have been unable to reach an agreement and reach a resolution regarding this discovery matter without the Court’s intervention. Accordingly, this matter is presented to the Court for determination. Certified to on this 31% day of July 2023. /s/ William E. Reid WILLIAM E. REID CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on31‘ th day ofJuly 2023 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was efiled and e-served on all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ William E. Reid William E. Reid PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT BFS — PAGE 10 26147.0033 CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885 CHARLES DAvID Woon Jr. and IN THE DISTRICT COURT LOLA BRIDGETTE WOOD 134™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC; SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS; RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS LLC DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC. incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS’ RESPONSES AND/OR OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, CHARLES DAVID WOOD, JR.’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO. Plaintiff, CHARLES DAVID WOOD, JR. By and through his Attorney of Record: Mr. William E. Reid REID DENNIS & FRICK, P.C. 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380 Frisco, Texas 75034 NOW COMES BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC, incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC (hereinafter “BFS”); Defendant herein and serves its Responses and/or Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr.’s First Request for Production pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. [REMAINDER PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY] BFS’ Resp to PL David's RFP Page 1 of 63 26147.0033 Respectfully submitted, LANGLEY & BANACK 745 E. Mulberry, Suite 900 San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 736-6600 (210) 735-6889 facsimile by, oa IAN M. McLIN State Bar No. 24005071 imclin@langleybanack.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXas SALES LLC, incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been delivered in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(a) on this the 19" day of June, 2023, to the following counsel of record: Via E-Service: edocsnotifications@reiddennis.com Mr. William E. Reid REID DENNIS & FRICK 2600 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75204 Counsel for Plaintiffs, Charles David Wood Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood Via E-Service: mail@rlattorneys.com Mr. Mark S. Senter Ms. Ciera Norris RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 2425 N. Central Expressway, Suite 231 Richardson, Texas 75080 Counsel for Defendant, Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers oa IAN M. McLIN BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP. Page 2 of 63 26147.0033 DEFENDANT BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a BMC TEXAS SALES LLC, incorrectly sued as BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS’ RESPONSES AND/OR OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, CHARLES DAVID WOOD, JR.’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOTE: All documents produced herein (BFS 0001-0044) are available for review and download through the following link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3z5age94b4ftdka/AADz0_eAZcjBaM50ljpULXZda?dl=0 REQUEST NO. 1: Please produce each and every document that identifies the employees or workers of Builders that were involved in selling the beams, rafters and trusses to Bella or the Woods for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Objection, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection to the disclosure of private and personal information as the requesting party seeks confidential and private information which would compromise the integrity of Respondent’s, or its employees’, personal data, finances, and physical security. Objection, the request calls for information or documentation protected under HIPAA. Upon receipt of a proper release of information compliant with HIPAA requirements from requestor, respondent will supplement to respond/produce those documents, to the extent they exist and/or in the possession of respondent. Objection, overly broad, burdensome and harassing and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection, not reasonably limited in scope or time period. Production of such information would require hundreds of man-hours and excessive resources and expenses. Respondent objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad as a matter of law. Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “each and every document” is overbroad and non-specific on its face. Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 3 of 63 26147.0033 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 2: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and Bella regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 3: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and Sawmill regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product/ trial strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 313 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012). Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 4: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and Ridgeview regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 373 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012). BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 4 of 63 26147.0033 Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 5: Please produce any and all communications between Builders and the Woods regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 6: Please produce any and all communications by Builders with Truett Hunt and/or Daniel Zipperlen regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 7: Please produce the engineering plans and design specifications that were used to design and prepare the shop drawings that were used to construct the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Respondent objects to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents and/or tangible items that are not within the possession, custody or control of the Respondents. BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 5 of 63 26147.0033 Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Respondent objects as the request is unduly burdensome because the discovery can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome and/or less expensive, including from the requestor’s own records. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(a). Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 8: Please produce the original design plans, specification and shop drawings used to create, reviewed or used by Builders or others to construct the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Respondent objects to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents and/or tangible items that are not within the possession, custody or control of the Respondents. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Respondent objects as the request is unduly burdensome because the discovery can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome and/or less expensive, including from the requestor’s own records. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(a). Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 8{sic]: Please produce any amendments, modifications or changes to the design plans, specification and shop drawings that were used to create, reviewed or used by Builders or others to construct the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 6 of 63 26147.0033 RESPONSE: Respondent objects to the extent Plaintiffs seek documents and/or tangible items that are not within the possession, custody or control of the Respondents. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 9: All letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of information kept manually by Emilio Cantu or stored electronically regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided by Builders for the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “all letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of information” is overbroad and non-specific on its face. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 7 of 63 26147.0033 REQUEST NO. 10: All letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, alendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of information that were obtained by Builders during the core sample testing performed at the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220 on or about February 28, 2023. RESPONSE: Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “all letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of information” is overbroad and non-specific on its face. Objection, “[a] party may request another party to designate and disclose information concerning a testifying expert witness only through a request for disclosure under Rule 194 and through depositions and reports as permitted by” TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 195. Requestor’s request for the production of information and preparation of reports by testifying expert witnesses through a request for production is improper and prohibited by the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 11: Please produce each and every document that identifies any changes made by Builders, Sawmill, and/or Ridgeview and/or their employees and/or workers to the labor, equipment, materials, method and procedures used to construct the Plaza Structure Project prior to the construction of the Plaza Structures in July 2022. RESPONSE: Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of information protected by the attorney work product/ trial strategy privilege. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2). BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 8 of 63 26147.0033 Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “each and every document” is overbroad and non-specific on its face. Objection, “[a] party may request another party to designate and disclose information concerning a testifying expert witness only through a request for disclosure under Rule 194 and through depositions and reports as permitted by” TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 195. Requestor’s request for the production of information and preparation of reports by testifying expert witnesses through a request for production is improper and prohibited by the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 12: Please produce copies of any and any [sic] agreements, all communications, correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications between Defendant Sawmill and Builders regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project or pertaining to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 313 8.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012). Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 9 of 63 26147.0033 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “any and any” [sic] is overbroad and non- specific on its face. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 13: Please produce copies of any and any agreements, all communications, correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications between Defendant Ridgeview and Builders regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project or pertaining to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); Jn re XL Specialty Ins., 373 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012). Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “any and any” [sic] is overbroad and non- specific on its face. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests marked as “request no. 8”, requests for production far exceeding the proportional needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, respondent answers as follows: BFS’ Resp to PL’s RFP Page 10 of 63 26147.0033 Please see bates labeled documents BFS 0001-0044. REQUEST NO. 14: Please produce copies of any and any agreements, all communications, correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications between Defendant Ridgeview and Sawmill or Builders regarding the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project or pertaining to the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Objection, respondent objects to the extent that the interrogatory seeks the discovery of information protected by the joint-defense / allied-litigant, attorney work product / trial strategy privileges. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.5(c)(2); TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 503(b)(1)(C); In re XL Specialty Ins., 313 S.W.3d 46, 49-50 (Tex.2012). Respondent further objects to this request on the grounds it constitutes a fishing expedition and is vague and ambiguous and fails to specify with reasonable particularity the information/documents sought so as to enable respondent to make a meaningful response thereto. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996), Loftin vy. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989), and Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Simply, a request for “any and any” [sic] is overbroad and non- specific on its face. Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, Respondent objects as the information sought is not proportional to the needs of the case and is thus outside the scope of discovery. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 192.4(b). In this regard, Plaintiff has propounded ninety-six (96), including two requests ma