Preview
FILED
7/26/2023 4:50 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
SUPPLEMENT TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
FROM SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS
Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. (CDW) and Lola Bridgette Wood (LBW) (collectively
herein “Plaintiffs”) file their Supplement to their Motion to Compel Defendant Sawmill Partners
LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers (“Sawmill”) to Answer Discovery respectfully showing the Court
as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Sawmill to Answer Discovery was filed on July
14, 2023. Sawmill served its discovery responses on July 14, 2023, after
Plaintiffs motion to compel was filed.
Sawmill responses to Plaintiffs discovery were due on or before June 25, 2023.
Because of Sawmill’s Failure to timely respond and/or object to Plaintiffs’
discovery requests, Sawmill has waived its objections to Plaintiffs’ Discovery
Requests. TRCP 193.1
Sawmill’s responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Production, Plaintiff CDW’s First Interrogatories and Plaintiff LBW’s First
Interrogatories are replete with untimely, boilerplate, evasive objections to
Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
Plaintiffs file this Supplement to their Motion to Compel to require Defendant
Sawmill to remove its objections and fully answer Plaintiffs Discovery
Requests served in accordance with TRCP.
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 1
I.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1.1 This lawsuit seeks to recover damages ranging between $250,000-$1,000,000 plus
prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees for Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs’ damages as a
result of Defendants’ negligence causing the failure and collapse of two Plaza structures on
Plaintiffs’ property.
1.2 Plaintiffs paid $101,770 to BFS for the design, engineering, and manufacturing of
the beams, rafters and trusses for the two Plaza structures. It is Plaintiffs understanding that BFS
hired Sawmill in connection with the construction of the Plaza structures, and Sawmill in turn
selected and hired Ridgeview Timberworks.
1.3 After Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel for Sawmill’s discovery responses on
July 14, 2023, Defendant Sawmill ultimately responded and objected to Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests. Sawmill’s discovery responses are as follows:
Exhibit A: Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers Responses and
Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr.’s First Set of Requests for
Production
Exhil B: Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers Answers and
Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s (CDW) First
Interrogatories
Exhibit C: Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers Answers and
Objections to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood (LBW) First Interrogatories.
1.4 Defendant Sawmill’s responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production were due on
or before June 17, 2023. At Defendant Sawmill’s request, Plaintiff extended the response deadline
to June 23, 2023. Defendant Sawmill failed to respond until July 14, 2023 thereby waiving its
objections to Plaintiffs requests.
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 2
1.4.1 Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production: Out of 95 Requests,
Sawmill improperly objects to 49 of the Requests.! Following the untimely
objections to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9,11, 22, 23, 24, 35 Sawmill then refers
Plaintiffs globally to its documents “Bates SAWMILL 000001-0000064”
without specifying which specific bates stamped documents are responsive to
the individual requests. Sawmill’s Responses to Plaintiff's Requests Nos. 7,
8, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49,
50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 85, 88, 89 and 94 simply refers to its documents “Bates
SAWMILL 000001-0000064” again without specifying which specific bates
stamped documents are responsive to the individual requests.
1.5 Defendant Sawmill’s Answers to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr.’s (CDW) First
Interrogatories were due on or before June 18, 2023 and although at Sawmill’s request, Plaintiff
extended the response deadline to June 23, 2023, Defendant Sawmill did not respond until July
14, 2023. Defendant Sawmill has waived its objections to Plaintiff CDW’s First Interrogatories
Nos. 1-16.
iS) Answers to Plaintiff (CDW) Interrogatories: Sawmill improperly objects
to 10 of Plaintiff's 16 Interrogatories. See Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 15, and 16. In response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13,
tather than answer the Interrogatory, Sawmill generally directs Plaintiff to
“the documents produced in this matter” but fails to identify which parties’
documents and/or specific bates stamped documents.
+ See Exhibit A, RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 41,42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93.
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 3
1.6 Defendant Sawmill’s Answers to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood’s (LBW) First
Interrogatories were due on or before June 26, 2023. Defendant Sawmill did not respond until July
14, 2023. Defendant Sawmill has waived its objections to Plaintiff LBW’s First Interrogatories
Nos. 1-16.
1.6.1 Answers to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood (LBW) Interrogatories:
Sawmill has objected to every single one of the Plaintiff LBW’s 14 contention
Interrogatories by lodging improper, identical prophylactic and baseless
objections. Sawmill has failed to provide any answer to Plaintiff LBW’s
Interrogatories.
1.7 Plaintiffs have filed their motion to compel Sawmill’s discovery responses because
Sawmill’s discovery responses are needed for Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their lawsuit.
IL
GROUNDS FOR MOTION
2.0 Plaintiffs file this Supplement to their motion, to compel Defendant Sawmill to
fully respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. T.R.C.P. 215.1 (b)
2.1 By not serving its discovery responses until July 14, 2023, Sawmill failed to timely
respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and has waived any objections to the discovery requests.
T.R.C.P. 193.2(e).
2.2 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.
2.3 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).
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 4
Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Jn re CSX Corp., 124 S.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).
2.4 To object to a discovery request, the responding party must make a timely
[emphasis added] 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.” /n re CI Host,
Inc., 92 $8.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.
2.5 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1 (b), Plaintiffs file this motion on the grounds that
Defendant Sawmill’s served improper, untimely, and prophylactic objections and has failed to
fully and properly respond to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Request for Production,
Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood,
Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories.
2.6 Plaintiffs are entitled to know Defendant Sawmill’s version of the relevant facts
surrounding the parties’ communications, representations, the agreements and contracts entered
between the parties and Sawmill’s understanding of why the two Plaza structures failed on
November 4, 2022. Sawmill’s objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Requests for
Production and First Set of Interrogatories are foremost untimely and therefore improper.
Additionally, Sawmill’s discovery objections are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning the facts
surrounding the parties’ understanding why the two Plaza structures failed and who are the
responsible parties.
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 5
2.7 Sawmill’s objections and failure to answer each of Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood,
Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories are untimely and therefore improper. Further, Sawmill
prophylactically objects to each of Plaintiff's contention interrogatories on the grounds the
interrogatories seek to have Sawmill marshal its evidence, are overly broad and exceed the scope
of discovery, among other objections. Plaintiffs contention interrogatories ask Sawmill to identify
specific facts demonstrating specific allegations made by Sawmill in its pleadings. Plaintiff's
interrogatories fall within the parameters of TRCP Rule 197.1 and do not require a marshaling of
evidence. See In 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 Sawmill 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. Sawmill’s objections are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning
the facts surrounding Sawmill’s defenses and claims in the case. Plaintiffs asked contention
interrogatories within the scope of Rule 197.1.
2.8 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. McIlhany, 798 S.W. 550, 555
(Tex. 1990). 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.” /d For these reasons, Plaintiffs move the Court
to compel Defendant Sawmill to remove its objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s
Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 22,
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 6
23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 41,42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76,
77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93 and fully answer the requests; to compel Defendant
Sawmill to identify by specific bates label what documents are responsive to Requests Nos. Nos.
1, 3, 4, 6, 9,11, 22, 23, 24, 35; and compel Defendant Sawmill to identify by specific bates label
what documents are responsive Requests Nos. 7, 8, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33,
39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 85, 88, 89 and 94 after removing its objections.
Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant Sawmill to remove objections to CDW’s First Set
of Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 and to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood, Jr’s
First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 and to answer these
contention interrogatories fully and completely as contemplated by TRCP 197.1.
2D Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that Defendant Sawmill must amend its
responses to the Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Plaintiff (Charles David Wood, Jr.), Plaintiff
Dave Wood’s First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood’s First Interrogatories
by removing its objections and answer Plaintiffs’ discovery without objection within seven (7)
days of the Court’s order.
III.
PRAYER
FOR THESE REASONS, Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood
ask the Court to Order enter an order compelling Defendant Sawmill Partners to amend its
discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests by:
1) Withdrawing objections Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Request for
Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 41,42, 55, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84,
87, 90, 91, 92, 93 and fully and completely answer each request;
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 7
2) Identifying by specific bates label what documents are responsive Requests Nos. 1, 3,
4, 6, 7,8, 8, 9,11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40,
44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 85, 88, 89 and 94;
3) Withdrawing all objections Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of
Interrogatories 1, 2, 3,7, 8,9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 and fully and completely answer; and
4) Withdraw objections Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 21 and fully and completely answer;
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
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that on July26, 2023, I placed a call and left a message for counsel
for Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers, Mark Senter to discuss the merits
of this Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. On July 20, 2023, we sent Mr. Senter an
email requesting Sawmill Partner’s review this Supplement and provide times for a conference
call to discuss the merits of the foregoing. After my call on July 26, 2023, Mr. Senter and I
exchanged emails to have a discussion about the Supplement to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and
scheduled a call for 11:00 a.m. on July 26, 2023. Mr. Senter advised me he was running behind
and would call before 11:20, I advised him I would be available until 1:00 pm. Mr. Senter did not
call me. Accordingly, this matter is presented to the Court for determination.
Certified to on this 26" day of July 2023.
/s/ William E. Reid
William E. Reid
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on 26th day of July 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
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 9
CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885
CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR. AND LOLA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
BRIDGETTE WOOD,
Plaintiff,
VS.
1347 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC,
SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A
RICHARDSON TIMBERS, RIDGEVIEW
TIMBERWORKS LLC,
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT SAWMILL PARTNERS D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS’ RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR.’S FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO: Plaintiff, Charles David Wood, Jr., by and through his counsel of record, William E. Reid,
Reid Dennis & Frick, P.C., 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380, Frisco, Texas 75034.
Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant hereby serves the
following Responses and Objections to Request for Production.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 1 of 39
Respectfully submitted,
RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
/s/ Mark S. Senter.
Mark S. Senter.
Texas Bar No. 24052790
msenter@rlattorneys.com
Ciera Norris
Texas Bar No. 24118666
norris@rlattorneys.com
2425 N. Central Expressway Suite 231
Richardson, TX 75080
(972) 427.3322- Office/Facsimile
For Service: mail@rlattorneys.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A
RICHARDSON TIMBERS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded
to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on July 14, 2023.
/s/ Mark S. Senter
Mark S. Senter
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 2 of 39
DEFENDANT SAWMILL PARTNERS D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS’ RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR.’S FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 1:
Please produce each and every document that identifies the employees or workers of Sawmill that
were involved in selling the beams, rafters and trusses to Bella or the Woods for the Plaza Structure
Project.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for the reason it is overbroad, ambiguous, and
beyond the scope of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request for the
reason that it fails to specify a category of documents with reasonable particularity as required by
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.1.
This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 1, to the extent it seeks "all documents,"
such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope
and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App--Corpus Christi 1996,
orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule
requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989);
T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere "fishing expedition." Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such "fishing expeditions" are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street,
722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under
Bates-labeled SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 2:
Please produce any and all communications between Sawmill and Bella regarding the beams,
rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 2, to the extent it seeks "all
communications," as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited
in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. -
Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in
compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d
145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 3 of 39
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere "fishing expedition." Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such "fishing expeditions" are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722
S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, after a diligent search Defendant did not
identify any documents responsive to this request.
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: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 3, to the extent it seeks "all
communications," as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited
in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. -
Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in
compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d
145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722
S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced
as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 4:
Please produce any and all communications between Sawmill and Ridgeview regarding the beams,
rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 4, to the extent it seeks “all
communications,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 4 of 39
in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. -
Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in
compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d
145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722
S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced
as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 5:
Please produce any and all communications between Sawmill and the Woods regarding the beams,
rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 5, to the extent it seeks “all
communications,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited
in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. -
Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in
compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d
145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722
S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, after a diligent search Defendant did not
identify any documents responsive to this request.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 5 of 39
REQUEST NO. 6:
Please produce any and all communications by Sawmill with Truett Hunt and/or Daniel Zipperlen
regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 6, to the extent it seeks “all
communications,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited
in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. -
Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in
compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d
145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722
S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced
as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. :
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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 8:
Please produce the original design plans, specification and shop drawings used to create, reviewed
or used by Sawmill or others to construct the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the
Woods Plaza Structure Project.
RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 6 of 39
REQUEST NO. 8:
Please produce any amendments, modifications or changes to the design plans, specification and
shop drawings that were used to create, reviewed or used by Sawmill 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.
RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
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 Sawmill for the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project
located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and to
the extent that it is determined by this court that defendant has custody and control over documents
in the possession of its insurance company, then documents are being withheld from production
based on the assertion of those privileges. In addition, defendant objects to the production of items
generated by defendant, if any, prior to the date that defendant reasonably anticipated litigation
because those documents are not relevant to the subject matter of the pending suit nor are those
documents likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, defendant object to
this request because it is vague and ambiguous, and it is overly broad and requests documents that
would not be within the custody or control of this defendant.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, defendant responds as follows:
tesponsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under
Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 10:
All letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar
compilations of information that were obtained by Sawmill 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: Defendant asserts the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and to
the extent that it is determined by this court that defendant has custody and control over documents
in the possession of its insurance company, then documents are being withheld from production
based on the assertion of those privileges. In addition, defendant objects to the production of items
generated by defendant, if any, prior to the date that defendant reasonably anticipated litigation
because those documents are not relevant to the subject matter of the pending suit nor are those
documents likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, defendant object to
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 7 of 39
this request because it is vague and ambiguous, and it is overly broad and requests documents that
would not be within the custody or control of this defendant.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, after a diligent search Defendant did
not identify any documents responsive to this request.
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: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 11, to the extent it seeks “all
documents,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time
and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus
Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance
with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148
(Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond
the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to
nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722
S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced
as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 12:
Please produce copies of any and any 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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 8 of 39
REQ' TNO. 1
Please produce copies of any and any agreements, all communications, correspondence, emails,
text messages, voice mails, and video communications between Defendant Ridgeview and
Sawmill 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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 15:
Please produce a copy of each statute, code, ordinance, rule and/or regulation that governed
Sawmill’s work designing or constructing the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the
Woods Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this
request.
REQUEST NO. 16:
Please produce a copy of each statute, code, ordinance, rule and/or regulation that governed the
construction of the Woods Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it exceeds the permissible scope of
discovery. Defendant will provide information required for expert witnesses in accordance with
Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 9 of 39
By requesting “‘a copy of each statute, code, ordinance, rule and/or regulation” without specifying
the documents requested, defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible
“fishing expedition” as it fails to identify with sufficient specificity the documents sought. The
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require a specific request for documents, and in accordance with
Comment 2 to Rule 193, defendant may refuse to comply with this request entirely.
As worded, this request would require defendant’s counsel to divulge its mental impressions and
conclusions regarding what documents are relevant its defense of the plaintiff's allegations. By
asking defendant to identify all facts supporting its contention, this request exceeds the permissible
scope of discovery because it seeks to have defendant marshal its evidence. Moreover, it is overly
broad. In addition, defendant objects to this request because it asks defendant to provide evidence
in support of a fact issue that is solely within the province of the jury to decide and upon which
the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
REQUEST NO. 1
Please produce a list or other documentation showing the labor, equipment, materials and services
that Sawmill provided that were used to build, construct or order the beams, rafters and trusses for
the Woods Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 1
Please produce a list or other documentation showing the labor, equipment, materials and services
that Builders provided that were used to build, construct or order the beams, rafters and trusses for
the Woods Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: Responsive documents, in Sawmill possession, custody or control, are being
produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 19:
Please produce a list or other documentation showing the labor, equipment, materials, and services
that Ridgeview provided that were used to build, construct, or order the beams, rafters and trusses
for the Woods Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: Responsive documents, in Sawmill possession, custody or control, are being
produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 10 of 39
REQUEST NO. 20:
Please produce each Work Order issued between Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview for the beams,
rafters and trusses or work performed in constructing the Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston
Court, Dallas, Texas 75220.
RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this
response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
REQUEST NO. 21:
The Contract documents entered between Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview for the for the beams,
rafters and trusses or work performed in constructing the Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston
Court, Dallas, Texas 75220, including, but not limited to the designs, engineering plans and/or
specifications.
RESPONSE: After a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this
request.
REQUEST NO. 2:
All documents identifying what Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview did to analyze the beams, rafters
and trusses necessary to construct the Woods Plaza Structure Project, including the quantity and
types of materials necessary to construct the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza
Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220,
RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 22, to the extent it seeks “all
documents,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time
and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App.--Corpus
Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance
with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148
(Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2.
This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far
beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts
to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any
reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the
purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests
for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed
upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed
upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street,
722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1987, no writ).
Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced
as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 11 of 39
REQ O. 23:
All documents identifying what Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview did to determine the adequacy
of any materials that were selected to construct the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza
Structure Project.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it exceeds the permissible scope of
discovery. Defendant will provide information required for expert witnesses in accordance with
Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
By requesting “All documents identifying and/or all documents that are relevant” without
specifying the documents requested, defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous.
Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad and constitutes an
impermissible “fishing expedition” as it fails to identify with sufficient specificity the documents
sought. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require a specific request for documents, and in
accordance with Comment 2 to Rule 193, defendant may refuse to comply with this request
entirely.
Insofar as this request asks defendant to select those documents “which support your contention,”
defendant asserts the attorney client and attorney work product privileges. In requesting all
documents “which support your contention,” this request is a contention request for production
that is not permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure because such requests necessarily
invade the attorney’s mental impressions, opinions, conclusions and legal theories.
Insofar as this request seeks to have defendant disclose its trial evidence and exhibits, Defendant
objects to this request because it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, and defendant asserts
the attorney client and attorney work product
Preview
FILED 7/26/2023 4:50 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 SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. (CDW) and Lola Bridgette Wood (LBW) (collectively herein “Plaintiffs”) file their Supplement to their Motion to Compel Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers (“Sawmill”) to Answer Discovery respectfully showing the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Sawmill to Answer Discovery was filed on July 14, 2023. Sawmill served its discovery responses on July 14, 2023, after Plaintiffs motion to compel was filed. Sawmill responses to Plaintiffs discovery were due on or before June 25, 2023. Because of Sawmill’s Failure to timely respond and/or object to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Sawmill has waived its objections to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests. TRCP 193.1 Sawmill’s responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Plaintiff CDW’s First Interrogatories and Plaintiff LBW’s First Interrogatories are replete with untimely, boilerplate, evasive objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Plaintiffs file this Supplement to their Motion to Compel to require Defendant Sawmill to remove its objections and fully answer Plaintiffs Discovery Requests served in accordance with TRCP. SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 1 I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1.1 This lawsuit seeks to recover damages ranging between $250,000-$1,000,000 plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees for Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs’ damages as a result of Defendants’ negligence causing the failure and collapse of two Plaza structures on Plaintiffs’ property. 1.2 Plaintiffs paid $101,770 to BFS for the design, engineering, and manufacturing of the beams, rafters and trusses for the two Plaza structures. It is Plaintiffs understanding that BFS hired Sawmill in connection with the construction of the Plaza structures, and Sawmill in turn selected and hired Ridgeview Timberworks. 1.3 After Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel for Sawmill’s discovery responses on July 14, 2023, Defendant Sawmill ultimately responded and objected to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Sawmill’s discovery responses are as follows: Exhibit A: Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr.’s First Set of Requests for Production Exhil B: Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers Answers and Objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s (CDW) First Interrogatories Exhibit C: Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers Answers and Objections to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood (LBW) First Interrogatories. 1.4 Defendant Sawmill’s responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production were due on or before June 17, 2023. At Defendant Sawmill’s request, Plaintiff extended the response deadline to June 23, 2023. Defendant Sawmill failed to respond until July 14, 2023 thereby waiving its objections to Plaintiffs requests. SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 2 1.4.1 Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production: Out of 95 Requests, Sawmill improperly objects to 49 of the Requests.! Following the untimely objections to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9,11, 22, 23, 24, 35 Sawmill then refers Plaintiffs globally to its documents “Bates SAWMILL 000001-0000064” without specifying which specific bates stamped documents are responsive to the individual requests. Sawmill’s Responses to Plaintiff's Requests Nos. 7, 8, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 85, 88, 89 and 94 simply refers to its documents “Bates SAWMILL 000001-0000064” again without specifying which specific bates stamped documents are responsive to the individual requests. 1.5 Defendant Sawmill’s Answers to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr.’s (CDW) First Interrogatories were due on or before June 18, 2023 and although at Sawmill’s request, Plaintiff extended the response deadline to June 23, 2023, Defendant Sawmill did not respond until July 14, 2023. Defendant Sawmill has waived its objections to Plaintiff CDW’s First Interrogatories Nos. 1-16. iS) Answers to Plaintiff (CDW) Interrogatories: Sawmill improperly objects to 10 of Plaintiff's 16 Interrogatories. See Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. In response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13, tather than answer the Interrogatory, Sawmill generally directs Plaintiff to “the documents produced in this matter” but fails to identify which parties’ documents and/or specific bates stamped documents. + See Exhibit A, RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 41,42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93. SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 3 1.6 Defendant Sawmill’s Answers to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood’s (LBW) First Interrogatories were due on or before June 26, 2023. Defendant Sawmill did not respond until July 14, 2023. Defendant Sawmill has waived its objections to Plaintiff LBW’s First Interrogatories Nos. 1-16. 1.6.1 Answers to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood (LBW) Interrogatories: Sawmill has objected to every single one of the Plaintiff LBW’s 14 contention Interrogatories by lodging improper, identical prophylactic and baseless objections. Sawmill has failed to provide any answer to Plaintiff LBW’s Interrogatories. 1.7 Plaintiffs have filed their motion to compel Sawmill’s discovery responses because Sawmill’s discovery responses are needed for Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their lawsuit. IL GROUNDS FOR MOTION 2.0 Plaintiffs file this Supplement to their motion, to compel Defendant Sawmill to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. T.R.C.P. 215.1 (b) 2.1 By not serving its discovery responses until July 14, 2023, Sawmill failed to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and has waived any objections to the discovery requests. T.R.C.P. 193.2(e). 2.2 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. 2.3 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). SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 4 Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Jn re CSX Corp., 124 S.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). 2.4 To object to a discovery request, the responding party must make a timely [emphasis added] 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.” /n re CI Host, Inc., 92 $8.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. 2.5 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1 (b), Plaintiffs file this motion on the grounds that Defendant Sawmill’s served improper, untimely, and prophylactic objections and has failed to fully and properly respond to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Request for Production, Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories. 2.6 Plaintiffs are entitled to know Defendant Sawmill’s version of the relevant facts surrounding the parties’ communications, representations, the agreements and contracts entered between the parties and Sawmill’s understanding of why the two Plaza structures failed on November 4, 2022. Sawmill’s objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories are foremost untimely and therefore improper. Additionally, Sawmill’s discovery objections are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning the facts surrounding the parties’ understanding why the two Plaza structures failed and who are the responsible parties. SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 5 2.7 Sawmill’s objections and failure to answer each of Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories are untimely and therefore improper. Further, Sawmill prophylactically objects to each of Plaintiff's contention interrogatories on the grounds the interrogatories seek to have Sawmill marshal its evidence, are overly broad and exceed the scope of discovery, among other objections. Plaintiffs contention interrogatories ask Sawmill to identify specific facts demonstrating specific allegations made by Sawmill in its pleadings. Plaintiff's interrogatories fall within the parameters of TRCP Rule 197.1 and do not require a marshaling of evidence. See In 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 Sawmill 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. Sawmill’s objections are obstructive to Plaintiffs’ learning the facts surrounding Sawmill’s defenses and claims in the case. Plaintiffs asked contention interrogatories within the scope of Rule 197.1. 2.8 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. McIlhany, 798 S.W. 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). 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.” /d For these reasons, Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant Sawmill to remove its objections to Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 22, SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 6 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 41,42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93 and fully answer the requests; to compel Defendant Sawmill to identify by specific bates label what documents are responsive to Requests Nos. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9,11, 22, 23, 24, 35; and compel Defendant Sawmill to identify by specific bates label what documents are responsive Requests Nos. 7, 8, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 85, 88, 89 and 94 after removing its objections. Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant Sawmill to remove objections to CDW’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 and to Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 and to answer these contention interrogatories fully and completely as contemplated by TRCP 197.1. 2D Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that Defendant Sawmill must amend its responses to the Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Plaintiff (Charles David Wood, Jr.), Plaintiff Dave Wood’s First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood’s First Interrogatories by removing its objections and answer Plaintiffs’ discovery without objection within seven (7) days of the Court’s order. III. PRAYER FOR THESE REASONS, Plaintiffs Charles David Wood, Jr. and Lola Bridgette Wood ask the Court to Order enter an order compelling Defendant Sawmill Partners to amend its discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests by: 1) Withdrawing objections Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 41,42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93 and fully and completely answer each request; SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 7 2) Identifying by specific bates label what documents are responsive Requests Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,8, 8, 9,11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 79, 85, 88, 89 and 94; 3) Withdrawing all objections Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3,7, 8,9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 and fully and completely answer; and 4) Withdraw objections Plaintiff Lola Bridgette Wood’s First Set of Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 21 and fully and completely answer; 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 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE The undersigned certifies that on July26, 2023, I placed a call and left a message for counsel for Defendant Sawmill Partners LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers, Mark Senter to discuss the merits of this Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. On July 20, 2023, we sent Mr. Senter an email requesting Sawmill Partner’s review this Supplement and provide times for a conference call to discuss the merits of the foregoing. After my call on July 26, 2023, Mr. Senter and I exchanged emails to have a discussion about the Supplement to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and scheduled a call for 11:00 a.m. on July 26, 2023. Mr. Senter advised me he was running behind and would call before 11:20, I advised him I would be available until 1:00 pm. Mr. Senter did not call me. Accordingly, this matter is presented to the Court for determination. Certified to on this 26" day of July 2023. /s/ William E. Reid William E. Reid SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on 26th day of July 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 SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SAWMILL- PAGE 9 CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885 CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR. AND LOLA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT BRIDGETTE WOOD, Plaintiff, VS. 1347 JUDICIAL DISTRICT BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC, SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS, RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS LLC, Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT SAWMILL PARTNERS D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO: Plaintiff, Charles David Wood, Jr., by and through his counsel of record, William E. Reid, Reid Dennis & Frick, P.C., 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380, Frisco, Texas 75034. Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant hereby serves the following Responses and Objections to Request for Production. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 1 of 39 Respectfully submitted, RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. /s/ Mark S. Senter. Mark S. Senter. Texas Bar No. 24052790 msenter@rlattorneys.com Ciera Norris Texas Bar No. 24118666 norris@rlattorneys.com 2425 N. Central Expressway Suite 231 Richardson, TX 75080 (972) 427.3322- Office/Facsimile For Service: mail@rlattorneys.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on July 14, 2023. /s/ Mark S. Senter Mark S. Senter RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 2 of 39 DEFENDANT SAWMILL PARTNERS D/B/A RICHARDSON TIMBERS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: Please produce each and every document that identifies the employees or workers of Sawmill that were involved in selling the beams, rafters and trusses to Bella or the Woods for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for the reason it is overbroad, ambiguous, and beyond the scope of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request for the reason that it fails to specify a category of documents with reasonable particularity as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.1. This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 1, to the extent it seeks "all documents," such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App--Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere "fishing expedition." Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such "fishing expeditions" are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates-labeled SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 2: Please produce any and all communications between Sawmill and Bella regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 2, to the extent it seeks "all communications," as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 3 of 39 This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere "fishing expedition." Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such "fishing expeditions" are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, after a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this request. 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: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 3, to the extent it seeks "all communications," as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 4: Please produce any and all communications between Sawmill and Ridgeview regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 4, to the extent it seeks “all communications,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 4 of 39 in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 5: Please produce any and all communications between Sawmill and the Woods regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 5, to the extent it seeks “all communications,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, after a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this request. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 5 of 39 REQUEST NO. 6: Please produce any and all communications by Sawmill with Truett Hunt and/or Daniel Zipperlen regarding the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 6, to the extent it seeks “all communications,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. : 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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 8: Please produce the original design plans, specification and shop drawings used to create, reviewed or used by Sawmill or others to construct the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 6 of 39 REQUEST NO. 8: Please produce any amendments, modifications or changes to the design plans, specification and shop drawings that were used to create, reviewed or used by Sawmill 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. RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. 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 Sawmill for the Woods’ Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Defendant asserts the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and to the extent that it is determined by this court that defendant has custody and control over documents in the possession of its insurance company, then documents are being withheld from production based on the assertion of those privileges. In addition, defendant objects to the production of items generated by defendant, if any, prior to the date that defendant reasonably anticipated litigation because those documents are not relevant to the subject matter of the pending suit nor are those documents likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, defendant object to this request because it is vague and ambiguous, and it is overly broad and requests documents that would not be within the custody or control of this defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, defendant responds as follows: tesponsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 10: All letters, memoranda, notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, calendars, daytimers, or similar compilations of information that were obtained by Sawmill 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: Defendant asserts the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and to the extent that it is determined by this court that defendant has custody and control over documents in the possession of its insurance company, then documents are being withheld from production based on the assertion of those privileges. In addition, defendant objects to the production of items generated by defendant, if any, prior to the date that defendant reasonably anticipated litigation because those documents are not relevant to the subject matter of the pending suit nor are those documents likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, defendant object to RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 7 of 39 this request because it is vague and ambiguous, and it is overly broad and requests documents that would not be within the custody or control of this defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, after a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this request. 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: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 11, to the extent it seeks “all documents,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 12: Please produce copies of any and any 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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 8 of 39 REQ' TNO. 1 Please produce copies of any and any agreements, all communications, correspondence, emails, text messages, voice mails, and video communications between Defendant Ridgeview and Sawmill 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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. 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: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 15: Please produce a copy of each statute, code, ordinance, rule and/or regulation that governed Sawmill’s work designing or constructing the beams, rafters and trusses that were provided to the Woods Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: After a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 16: Please produce a copy of each statute, code, ordinance, rule and/or regulation that governed the construction of the Woods Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Defendant will provide information required for expert witnesses in accordance with Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 9 of 39 By requesting “‘a copy of each statute, code, ordinance, rule and/or regulation” without specifying the documents requested, defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” as it fails to identify with sufficient specificity the documents sought. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require a specific request for documents, and in accordance with Comment 2 to Rule 193, defendant may refuse to comply with this request entirely. As worded, this request would require defendant’s counsel to divulge its mental impressions and conclusions regarding what documents are relevant its defense of the plaintiff's allegations. By asking defendant to identify all facts supporting its contention, this request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery because it seeks to have defendant marshal its evidence. Moreover, it is overly broad. In addition, defendant objects to this request because it asks defendant to provide evidence in support of a fact issue that is solely within the province of the jury to decide and upon which the plaintiff has the burden of proof. REQUEST NO. 1 Please produce a list or other documentation showing the labor, equipment, materials and services that Sawmill provided that were used to build, construct or order the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 1 Please produce a list or other documentation showing the labor, equipment, materials and services that Builders provided that were used to build, construct or order the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Responsive documents, in Sawmill possession, custody or control, are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 19: Please produce a list or other documentation showing the labor, equipment, materials, and services that Ridgeview provided that were used to build, construct, or order the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza Structure Project located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Responsive documents, in Sawmill possession, custody or control, are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 10 of 39 REQUEST NO. 20: Please produce each Work Order issued between Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview for the beams, rafters and trusses or work performed in constructing the Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. RESPONSE: Responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. REQUEST NO. 21: The Contract documents entered between Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview for the for the beams, rafters and trusses or work performed in constructing the Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220, including, but not limited to the designs, engineering plans and/or specifications. RESPONSE: After a diligent search Defendant did not identify any documents responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 2: All documents identifying what Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview did to analyze the beams, rafters and trusses necessary to construct the Woods Plaza Structure Project, including the quantity and types of materials necessary to construct the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza Structure Project at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220, RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Request for Production No. 22, to the extent it seeks “all documents,” as such is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, not properly limited in time and/or scope and lacks specificity. See Davis v. Pate, 915 S.W.2d 76, 79 n.2 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, this Request is overly broad and not in compliance with the rule requiring specific requests for documents. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989); T.R.C.P. 193 Comment 2. This Defendant further objects to this Request for Production for the reason that it goes far beyond the scope necessary to achieve discovery for purposes of this litigation and instead amounts to nothing more than a mere “fishing expedition.” Such Request is propounded without any reasonable expectation of obtaining discoverable or relevant evidence and is merely sought for the purpose of perusing this Defendant’s files. Such “fishing expeditions” are not permitted in requests for production of documents. The probative value of the information sought, and burden placed upon Plaintiff if such discovery is denied or limited is greatly outweighed by the burden placed upon this Defendant if such discovery is granted. Independent Insulating Glass v. Street, 722 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1987, no writ). Subject to these objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are being produced as requested and are served with this response under Bates SAWMILL 000001-000064. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 11 of 39 REQ O. 23: All documents identifying what Builders, Sawmill and Ridgeview did to determine the adequacy of any materials that were selected to construct the beams, rafters and trusses for the Woods Plaza Structure Project. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Defendant will provide information required for expert witnesses in accordance with Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. By requesting “All documents identifying and/or all documents that are relevant” without specifying the documents requested, defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad and constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” as it fails to identify with sufficient specificity the documents sought. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require a specific request for documents, and in accordance with Comment 2 to Rule 193, defendant may refuse to comply with this request entirely. Insofar as this request asks defendant to select those documents “which support your contention,” defendant asserts the attorney client and attorney work product privileges. In requesting all documents “which support your contention,” this request is a contention request for production that is not permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure because such requests necessarily invade the attorney’s mental impressions, opinions, conclusions and legal theories. Insofar as this request seeks to have defendant disclose its trial evidence and exhibits, Defendant objects to this request because it exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, and defendant asserts the attorney client and attorney work product