Preview
FILED
7/18/2023 8:14 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Loaidi Grove DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-13539
Coast Cycle LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff
ve
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DW Oak Lawn, LLC
Defendant
192"? JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COAST CYCLE LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
FROM DEFENDANT DW OAK LAWN, LLC
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Coast Cycle LLC (herein sometimes “Coast Cycle LLC”), and
pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure makes and files this its Coast Cycle LLC’s
Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC, and in
support thereof shows the Court the following:
Motion to Compel Discovery Answers to April 7, 2023 Requests for Production of
Documents from Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC
1 Coast Cycle LLC” made an April 7, 2023 request for production of documents to
the Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC on or about April 7, 2023. Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC
objected to all 7 April 7, 2023 request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5,6 and 7 of the April 7,
2023 request for production of documents. Further for each of the seven request for
production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of
documents, Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objected based upon the documents being
attorney-client privileged and/or expert privileged and/or work product privileged and/or
confidential and/or proprietary and/or considered a trade secret, but Defendant DW Oak
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 1
Lawn, LLC has yet to provide a privledge log. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein the same as if fully copied and set forth at length are Defendant DW Oak
Lawn, LLC ’s May 9, 2023 objections and to all 7 April 7, 2023 request for production Nos. 1,
2, 3,4, 5,6 and7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents.
2. Each of the requests for production request Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC to
produce documents relevant to the key elements of this case. Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC
should be required to produce documents and Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objections that
the requests for production are a request to marshall of Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s
evidence are not well taken and should be overruled. Further for each of the seven request for
production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of
documents, Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objected based upon the documents being
attorney-client privileged and/or expert privileged and/or work product privileged and/or
confidential and/or proprietary and/or considered a trade secret, but Defendant DW Oak
Lawn, LLC has yet to provide a privledge log.
3 Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s objections to the request for production of
documents numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the first request for Production of documents are
based upon Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1 applies
to interrogatory answers not request for production of document answers, so Defendant DW Oak
Lawn, LLC ‘s objections to the request for production of documents numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents are not well taken on their face and
should be overruled. Further for each of the seven request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6
and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents, Defendant DW Oak Lawn,
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 2
LLC objected based upon the documents being attorney-client privileged and/or expert
privileged and/or work product privileged and/or confidential and/or proprietary and/or
considered a trade secret, but Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC has yet to provide a
privledge log.
4 Even if Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1 applied to request for production of
documents, which it does not, the Texas black letter from the Twelfth Texas Court of Appeals in
Tyler has clearly stated that a party may obtain discovery responses concerning the other party’s
legal contentions and factual basis for those contentions. In particular:
In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is relevant to the
subject matter in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the
party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party. TEX. R. CIV. P.
191.1. A party's legal contentions and the factual bases for those contentions are
discoverable. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(j). Even if made or prepared in anticipation of
litigation or for trial, information discoverable under Rule 192.3 concerning a
party's contentions is not work product protected from discovery. TEX. R. CIV. P.
192.5(c)(1). A party may request by disclosure or interrogatory the opinion or
contentions of the other party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2© (party may request disclosure
of legal theories and factual bases of responding party's claims or defenses); Tex. R. Civ.
P. 197.1 (interrogatory may ask responding party to state legal theories and to
describe in general the factual bases for its claims or defenses)....The Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure permit the use of contention interrogatories. (Emphasis added)
In re Ochoa, No. 12-04-00163-CV (TX 5/28/2004) (Tex. 2004)
5 In particular, the Nos. 1, 2,3, 4,5,6and7 of the April 7, 2023 request for
Production of documents are specifically set forth as follows:
REQUEST NO. 1:REQUEST NO. 1: All documents and/or communications and/or
invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your
attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter that Coast Cycle LLC caused damage to the premises that
are the subject of this lawsuit on or before March 30, 2023.
REQUEST NO. 2: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof
of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3,
2023 letter that DW OakLawn, LLC regarding repairs to the premises that are the subject
of this lawsuit that where the purported responsibility of Coast Cycle LLC pursuant to
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 3
Article 9 of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023.
REQUEST NO. 3: All documents and/or communications relating to any
communication with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject
of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023.
REQUEST NO. 4: All documents and/or communications relating to any
communication with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease
the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023.
REQUEST NO. 5: All documents and/or communications relating to any
communication with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject
of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023.
REQUEST NO. 6: All documents and/or communications relating to any
communication with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease
the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023.
REQUEST NO. 7: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof
of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s March 29,
2023, March 30, 2023, April 3, 2023 and/or April 5, 2023 letters that Coast Cycle LLC
committed any default of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3
2023.
6. DW OakLawn, LLC produced 275 pages of documents on May 9, 2023. Counsel
for Coast Cycle LLC requested a privledge log and supplemental documents by e-mail dated
May 14, 2023 but DW OakLawn, LLC did not provide the privledge log or the documents. The
e-mail dated May 14, 2023 provided:
5-14-23
Amanda:
Nice to meet you too.
The documentation that Dogwood failed to produce is pretty straightforward: the lease with the
new tenant; all drafts of the lease and construction documents and communications with the new
tenant prior to the lease being signed and after the lease being signed; all communications with any
other party that the landlord was contemplating leasing my client’s space to; and, proof of
payment, time of payment and all communications concerning all of the alleged repairs that the
landlord alleged were done, including the contact information for all contractors and sub
contractors, (Emphasis added)
Also no receipts for the correction of alleged damage to the space were produced. (Emphasis added)
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 4
Additionally, Dogwood failed to produce notices that my client specifically sent to Dogwood, for
example my May 5, 2023 letter to Dogwood which Gene specifically told me in a telephone conversation
later on May 5, 2023 would be included. My client informs me that numerous emails and notices
were likewise left out your document production. Please supplement and add these documents so
the record is clear and complete. (Emphasis added)
Concerning Dogwood’ request for production I am unaware of any such document. It was my
understanding that my client’s prior counsel and Dogwood’s counsel had demanded certain
documentation by letters and that no one voluntarily produced those documentation because neither
would agree. Please send me the request you are referring to.
Tam in trial preparation next week and in trial for a specially set trial the entire next week so I will not be
back in the office until the first week of June. Please supplement the document production and send me
some proposed dates for the first week of June that Gene is able to set up a time to discuss the
outstanding discovery issues.
Please also provide me a privilege log pursuant to rule 193(b) on or before May 25, 2023.
(Emphasis added)
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Tim
7
Counsel for Coast Cycle LLC again requested a privledge log by e-mail dated
June 7, 2023 but DW OakLawn, LLC did not provide the privledge log. The e-mail dated June
7, 2023 provided:
6-7-23
Amanda:
Nice to talk to you earlier. Attached are the responses and objections dated 3-27-23 that I
mentioned. Also, please also provide me a privilege log pursuant to rule 193(b) on or before June
16, 2023. (Emphasis added) We can plan to talk again the week of 6-19-23 around your schedule as you
may have deposition(s) that week I understand.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Tim
8 DW OakLawn, LLC produced by supplementation on June 19, 2023 another 552
pages of documents, many of which were simply duplicate copies. Counsel for Coast Cycle LLC
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 5
again requested a privledge log and supplemental documents by e-mail dated July 5, 2023 but
DW OakLawn, LLC did not provide the privledge log or the documents. The e-mail dated July
5, 2023 provided:
7-5-23
Amanda:
Following up on our June 7, 2023 phone call, unfortunately your client still did not
produce any of the documents that we discussed. (Emphasis added) It looks like all that your client
did was pad the document production with duplicate copies of many documents so you can ultimately tell
the court that you produced over 800 pages of documents when in fact most of the copies are duplicates.
You also did not provide me a privilege log pursuant to rule 193(b) on or before June 16,
2023. Based on the supplemental documents that were produced there were significant redactions
that need to be dealt with in the privilege log you did provide so please immediately provide the
privilege log. In particular see DWOL 341, DWOL 342, DWOL 351, DWOL 374, DWOL 449,
DWOL 450, DWOL 454, DWOL 455, and DWOL 456, that need to be addressed in the privilege
log plus the other documents that were not produced. In particular you produced no copies of any
checks or proof of payment that we discussed. You also produced no copies of the communications
on July 11 and the prior drafts and the prior communications with the substitute tenant. Also you
did not produce copies of the emails and letters that were sent to your firm by our firm and my
client’s prior attorneys’ firm. In particular you also produced no documentation concerning the
construction work that was done for the substitute tenant and when this construction work was
done. (Emphasis added)
Tam unavailable to discuss this week so if you wish to supplement your discovery further this
week based upon the documents that we discussed on June 7, 2023 please do. Otherwise I will file a
motion to compel and contact you concerning a mutually convenient hearing date.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Tim
9. On July 11, 2023 counsel for Coast Cycle LLC and DW OakLawn, LLC spoke
by telephone and counsel for DW OakLawn, LLC agreed to provide the privilege log and
supplemental documents by midnight July 14, 2023. After the telephone conversation on July
11, 2023 counsel for Plaintiff sent another email stating that she had misspoke and she was not
going to provide anything until July 21, 2023.
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 6
Other Applicable Law
10. Texas black letter from the Twelfth Texas Court of Appeals in Tyler has clearly
stated that a party may obtain discovery responses concerning the other party’s legal contentions
and factual basis for those contentions. In particular:
In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is relevant to the
subject matter in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the
party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party. TEX. R. CIV. P.
191.1. A party's legal contentions and the factual bases for those contentions are
discoverable. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(j). Even if made or prepared in anticipation of
litigation or for trial, information discoverable under Rule 192.3 concerning a
party's contentions is not work product protected from discovery. TEX. R. CIV. P.
192.5(c)(1). A party may request by disclosure or interrogatory the opinion or
contentions ofthe other party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2© (party may request disclosure
of legal theories and factual bases of responding party's claims or defenses); Tex. R. Civ.
P. 197.1 (interrogatory may ask responding party to state legal theories and to
describe in general the factual bases for its claims or defenses)....The Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure permit the use of contention interrogatories. (Emphasis added)
In re Ochoa, No. 12-04-00163-CV (TX 5/28/2004) (Tex. 2004)
11. The primary policy behind discovery is to seek truth so that disputes may be
decided by facts that are revealed rather than concealed. Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W. 2d 569,
573 (Tex. 1984, orig. proceedings). A party may secure the production of any document,
tangible item, or information in electronic or magnetic form that is not privileged and is relevant
or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence and answers to
interrogatories and answers to requests for admissions. TRCP 192.3(a) and 196 and197 and 198.
A party is entitled to secure discovery and answers to interrogatories and answers to
interrogatories and answers to requests for admissions from another party without court
intervention. When a party refuses to comply with proper discovery requests, the party seeking
discovery may file a motion to compel the other party to respond. TRCP 215.1(b). An objection
that is obscured by numerous unfounded objections is waived unless the court excuses the waiver
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 7
for good cause shown. TRCP 193.2(e) and 196 and197 and 198. Coast Cycle LLC would show
that Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s failure to answer and Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s
objections were unfounded and should be overruled, and Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC’s
responses were substantively incomplete. Furthermore, the requested discovery is relevant and
essential to the preparation of the Coast Cycle LLC’s claims and defenses and evaluation of the
case at the present time
12. For the reasons set forth in Coast Cycle LLC’s motion to compel, the documents
should be produced. All of the request for production of documents numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6
and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents are relevant because they
basically request information concerning the transactions that are the basis of this suit.
Conclusion
13. Pursuant to Rules 192, 193, 194, 196 and 197 and 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure Coast Cycle LLC requests that the Court overrule Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC‘ s
objections and compel Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC to comply with the discovery requests
and requests for production of documents and provide a complete privledge log.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Coast Cycle LLC requests that the
Court grant Coast Cycle LLC’s motion to compel discovery from Defendant DW Oak Lawn,
LLC in accordance with Rules 192, 193, 194, 196 and 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Coast Cycle LLC further requests any and all other relief to which it may show itself justly
entitled either at law or in equity.
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 8
Respectfully Submitted By:
RASHTI AND MITCHELL
/s/Timothy
Cae T. Mitchell
Mitchell
Timothy T. chell, Esquire
tim@rashtiandmitchell.com
Texas State Bar No. 14223000
Donna Kaye Rashti, Esquire
donna@rashtiandmitchell.com
Texas State Bar No. 16553400
4422 Ridgeside Drive
Dallas, Texas 75244
(972) 661-9471
Attorneys for Plaintiff Coast Cycle LLC
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that I have attempted to confer with Amanda Koch, Esq. on July 17,
2023 and July 18, 2023 but she would not speak with me. I hereby certify that I actually spoke
with Amanda Koch, Esq on July 11, 2023 and June 7, 2023 and May 14, 2023. I hereby certify
that I conferred or have attempted to confer with Amanda Koch, Esq. by e-mail on July 18,
2023, July 17, 2023, july 16, 2023, July 15, 2023, July 14, 2023, July 11, 2023, July 10, 2023 ,
July 5, 2023, June 7, 2023, and May 14, 2023 by e-mail. I hereby certify that Amanda Koch, Esq.
does oppose the relief requested herein. Despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to
resolve the matters presented.
Certified to the 18th Day of July, 2023, By:
/s/Timothy T. Mitchell
Timothy T. Mitchell, Attorney for
Plaintiff Coast Cycle LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to the
following as of this the 18" day of July 2023 via electronic service through the court website
as indicated below:
Gene Blanton, Esq.
Mira Blanton PLLC
8235 Douglas Ave, Suite 805
Dallas, Texas 75225
gene.blanton@mirablanton.com.
Tel 214-432-5674
/s/Timothy T. Mitchell
Timothy T. Mitchell, Attorney for Coast Cycle LLC
7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 9
CAUSE NO. DC-22-13539
COAST CYCLE, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
ve
DW OAK LAWN, LLC,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
v.
BILL GORMAN, MARISA WAYNE,
AND SABRINA ROY
Third Party Defendants, 1928? DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
To: Coast Cycle, LLC by and through its attorneys of record Dylan French, Timothy T.
Mitchell and Donna Kaye Rashti, 4422 Ridgeside Drive, Dallas, Texas 75244, Tel.: (972)
661 - 9471, via email and electronic filing system.
Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant DW Oak Lawn,
LLC (“DWOL”) provides the following Responses to Coast Cycle, LLC’s Request for
Production.
Respectfully submitted,
MIRA BLANTON PLLC
By /s/ Amanda M. Koch
Patrick E. “Gene” Blanton
State Bar No. 24058209
gene.blanton@mirablanton.com
Amanda M. Koch
State Bar No. 24051089
amanda.koch@mirablanton.com
8235 Douglas Ave., Ste 805
Dallas, TX 75225
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page| 1
(Telephone) (214) 432-5674
(Facsimile) (214) 225-4302
ATTORNEYS FOR DW OAK LAWN,
LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A correct copy of this filing was served on all known counsel of record through either the
electronic filing manager or via e-mail on this 9" day of May, 2023.
/s/ Amanda M. Koch
Amanda M. Koch
GLOBAL OBJECTIONS
1 DWOL does not intend to, nor does it, waive its attorney-client privilege or application of
the work product doctrine in responding to these Requests. Inadvertent disclosure of any
information that is privileged, which constitutes attorney work product, or which is otherwise
exempt from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or other applicable objection
to the disclosure of such information or the subject matter thereof, or the information contained
herein, or the right of DWOL to object to the use of any such information during subsequent
proceedings herein.
2 These Responses are made without waiver of any objections DWOL may have with respect
to any subsequent attempted use of these Responses, and DWOL specifically reserves all questions
as to the competency, privilege, relevance, materiality, and admissibility of the Requests, including
without limitation, the right to object to the use of these Responses or documents referenced herein
in any subsequent proceedings in this lawsuit or any other lawsuit, and the right to object on any
and all privileged grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures relating to the Responses
referenced herein. DWOL also reserves the right, at any time and upon proper showing, to revise,
correct, or clarify the following Responses.
3 DWOL objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to seck confidential,
technical, financial, marketing, trade secret or similar information (“confidential and/or proprietary
information”).
4 DWOL objects to each Request to the extent that it may assume the existence and truth of
unverified facts and allegations. In responding to any such Request, whether the response is in the
affirmative or the negative, DWOL does not admit the facts stated, implied, or assumed within the
Request as being true or accurate. Responses made to any such Request containing such
assumptions and allegations shall not be construed as an admission that any definition, assumption,
or statement contained in the Request is either factually correct or legally binding on DWOL.
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 2
5, DWOL objects to the Requests in their entirety insofar as they address matters and/or seek
information that is within the knowledge, possession, custody, or control of third parties, former
employees of those third parties, or DWOL’s own former employees and/or representatives who
are not within DWOL’s control, on the ground that such Requests impose an undue and oppressive
burden of discovery upon DWOL.
6. In responding to these Requests, DWOL does not concede that the information requested
is relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Any Response, in whole or in part, to any Request is not intended to be
and should not be construed as a waiver by DWOL of all or any part of any objection to any
Request. DWOL reserves all objections to the admissibility of any Responses, including without
limitation, objections of relevance and materiality. In addition, DWOL expressly reserves both
the right to object to further discovery and to the subject matter of these Requests and the right to
object to the introduction of any documents produced in response to these Requests. DWOL further
reserves the right to supplement any and all responses if relevant, responsive and non-privileged
information becomes available.
7 DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 2 seeking to have DWOL produce materials
from “third parties whom [DWOL] has a superior right to compel production, such as [DWOL’s]
agents, insurers, clients, principals, representatives, security contractors, contractors, and, unless
privileged, attomeys. This instruction not only exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for
production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, but is vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, is confusing, is in no
way limited to DWOL as a party to this lawsuit, and seeks to have Defendant conduct discovery
for which Plaintiff bears the burden.
8 DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 4 which states the “requests refer to the time,
place, and circumstances of the occurrence described in Plaintiff's Original Petition and any
amendments thereto,” and thus fails to even remotely specify appropriate limits for its requests.
Plaintiff's vague reference to a 240-page filing, which lacks clarity and specifics, does not
adequately frame any request for production, exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for
production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, is vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and harassing, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, is confusing, and
is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case.
9 DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 5, which exceeds the bounds of discovery via
a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, is vague, unduly
burdensome, and harassing, calls for speculation, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by
Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case.
10. DWOL objects to Plaintiff’s Instruction No. 6, which exceeds the bounds of discovery via
a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, as well as violates the
requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3, and is vague, unduly burdensome, and
harassing, calls for speculation, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and
shift its discovery burdens in this case.
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page |3
lL. DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 7, which exceeds the bounds of discovery via
a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, is directed at an
unknown entity, “Phoenix Communications, Inc.,” is vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing,
calls for speculation, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its
discovery burdens in this case.
12. DWOL objects to Definition Nos. 2 —5, to the extent the terms encompass DW Oak Lawn,
LLC.’s former employees that are no longer subject to Defendant, exceed the bounds of discovery
via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, are vague, unduly
burdensome, and harassing, call for speculation, are confusing, and are an improper attempt by
Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case.
13: The foregoing objections apply to each and every response herein. Subject to these
objections and to any additional objections made in response to specific Requests, DWOL
responds as follows:
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 1: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of
payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter
that Coast Cycle LLC caused damage to the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or
before March 30, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request as vague, calling for speculation, compound, and confusing in that
Plaintiff has neither properly referenced, defined or attached “your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter,”
nor identified any recipients of same. DWOL further objects as “all documents and/or
communications...relating to your claims” is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome,
harassing, not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant
and admissible evidence, and improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to
trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See
K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 8.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of
this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are
confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege,
attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see documents produced herewith.
DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information
should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
REQUEST NO. 2: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of
payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter
that DW OakLawn, LLC regarding repairs to the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit that
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production Page| 4
where the purported responsibility of Coast Cycle LLC pursuant to Article 9 of the lease that is
the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request. as compound, vague, calling for speculation, and confusing in that
Plaintiff has neither properly referenced, defined or attached “your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter,”
or identified any recipients of same. DWOL further objects as “all documents and/or
communications...relating to your claims” is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome,
harassing, is not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant
and admissible evidence, and improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to
trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See
K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 §.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of
this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are
confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege,
attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see documents produced herewith.
DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information
should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
REQUEST NO. 3: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication
with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or
before April 3, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request as “all documents and/or communications...relating to any
communication with any third parties” and without limiting same to a specific time frame or any
category of third party is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing and not
properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible
evidence. Additionally, this request is compound and misleading. Moreover, this request for “all
documents and/or communications...relating to any communication” improperly seeks to have
DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited
by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 §.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.
1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants
object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade
secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert
privilege, all of which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, please see documents produced
herewith with regard to DWOL’s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219,
following Plaintiff's abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort
to mitigate DWOL’s damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and
DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information
should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page |5
REQUEST NO. 4: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication
with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease the premises that are
the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request as compound, misleading, vague, calling for speculation, and
confusing in that Plaintiff has neither properly referenced or defined “then existing tenants” to
appropriately define the time period referenced. DWOL further objects as “all documents and/or
communications. ..relating to any communication” and without limiting same to a specific time
frame is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, is not properly limited in
time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and
improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing
expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937
S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-end
ed
request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or
considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client
privilege or
consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, please see documents produced
herewith with regard to DWOL’s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219,
following Plaintiffs abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort
to mitigate its damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL
reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information
should
Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
REQUEST NO. 5: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication
with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on
or
after April 3, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to any
communication with any third parties” as calling for speculation, overly broad, vague,
unduly
burdensome, harassing and not properly limited in scope so as to lead to the discover
y of relevant
and admissible evidence. More specifically, Plaintiff has not identified any category
of third party
so as to provide any reasonable particularity to this request. Moreover, this request for “all
documents and/or communications. ..relating to any communication” improperly seeks
to have
DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expediti
on prohibited
by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d
429, 431 (Tex.
1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defenda
nts
object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or consider
ed to be a trade
secret, or violates the work-product privile; ‘ge, attorney-client privilege or consultin
g expert
privilege, all of which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waivin; ig same, please see documen
ts produced
herewith with regard to DWOL’ s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219,
following Plaintiff's abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on
March 29, 2023 in an effort
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production
Page | 6
to mitigate its damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL
reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should
Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
REQUEST NO. 6: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication
with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease the premises that are
the subject of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to any
communication” in that it improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial
and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-
Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 8.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of
this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are
confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege,
attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, please see documents produced
herewith with regard to DWOL’s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219,
following Plaintiff's abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort
to mitigate its damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL
reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should
Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
REQUEST NO. 7: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of
payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s March 29, 2023,
March 30, 2023, April 3, 2023 and/or April 5, 2023 letters that Coast Cycle LLC committed any
default of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023.
RESPONSE:
DWOL objects to this request for “all documents...relating to your claims” in that it improperly
seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial, is entirely overly broad, vague,
unduly burdensome, harassing and not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to
the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited
by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.
1996). Additionally, this request is compound, calls for speculation, and is confusing in that
Plaintiff has neither properly referenced, defined or attached “your attorney’s March 29, 2023,
March 30, 2023, April 3, 2023 and/or April 5, 2023 letters,” or identified any recipients of same.
Moreover, this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to your claims”
Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the
extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or
violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of
which are hereby asserted.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see documents produced herewith.
DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged informati
on
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 7
a
should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought.
Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 8
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Timothy Mitchell on behalf of Timothy Mitchell
Bar No. 14223000
tim@rashtiandmitchell.com
Envelope ID: 77653568
Filing Code Description: Motion - Compel
Filing Description: COAST CYCLE LLCS MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT DW OAK LAWN,
LLC
Status as of 7/19/2023 9:07 AM CST
Associated Case Party: COAST CYCLE, LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Donna KRashti donna@rashtiandmitchell.com | 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM | SENT
Timothy TMitchell tim@rashtiandmitchell.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM | SENT
Associated Case Party: DW OAK LAWN, LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Jadd Fitzgerald Masso | 24041411 jmasso@clarkhill.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT
Gene Blanton gene.blanton@mirablanton.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT
Amanda Koch amanda.koch@mirablanton.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT
‘Adylene Hovland adylene.hoviand@mirablanton.com | 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: DW OAK LAWN LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Elizabeth F.Griffin egriffin@clarkhill.com | 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM | SENT
Preview
FILED 7/18/2023 8:14 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Loaidi Grove DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-13539 Coast Cycle LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff ve OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DW Oak Lawn, LLC Defendant 192"? JUDICIAL DISTRICT COAST CYCLE LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT DW OAK LAWN, LLC COMES NOW, Plaintiff Coast Cycle LLC (herein sometimes “Coast Cycle LLC”), and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure makes and files this its Coast Cycle LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC, and in support thereof shows the Court the following: Motion to Compel Discovery Answers to April 7, 2023 Requests for Production of Documents from Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC 1 Coast Cycle LLC” made an April 7, 2023 request for production of documents to the Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC on or about April 7, 2023. Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objected to all 7 April 7, 2023 request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5,6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents. Further for each of the seven request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents, Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objected based upon the documents being attorney-client privileged and/or expert privileged and/or work product privileged and/or confidential and/or proprietary and/or considered a trade secret, but Defendant DW Oak 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 1 Lawn, LLC has yet to provide a privledge log. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein the same as if fully copied and set forth at length are Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ’s May 9, 2023 objections and to all 7 April 7, 2023 request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5,6 and7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents. 2. Each of the requests for production request Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC to produce documents relevant to the key elements of this case. Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC should be required to produce documents and Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objections that the requests for production are a request to marshall of Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s evidence are not well taken and should be overruled. Further for each of the seven request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents, Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC objected based upon the documents being attorney-client privileged and/or expert privileged and/or work product privileged and/or confidential and/or proprietary and/or considered a trade secret, but Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC has yet to provide a privledge log. 3 Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s objections to the request for production of documents numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the first request for Production of documents are based upon Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1 applies to interrogatory answers not request for production of document answers, so Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s objections to the request for production of documents numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents are not well taken on their face and should be overruled. Further for each of the seven request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents, Defendant DW Oak Lawn, 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 2 LLC objected based upon the documents being attorney-client privileged and/or expert privileged and/or work product privileged and/or confidential and/or proprietary and/or considered a trade secret, but Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC has yet to provide a privledge log. 4 Even if Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1 applied to request for production of documents, which it does not, the Texas black letter from the Twelfth Texas Court of Appeals in Tyler has clearly stated that a party may obtain discovery responses concerning the other party’s legal contentions and factual basis for those contentions. In particular: In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 191.1. A party's legal contentions and the factual bases for those contentions are discoverable. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(j). Even if made or prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, information discoverable under Rule 192.3 concerning a party's contentions is not work product protected from discovery. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5(c)(1). A party may request by disclosure or interrogatory the opinion or contentions of the other party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2© (party may request disclosure of legal theories and factual bases of responding party's claims or defenses); Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1 (interrogatory may ask responding party to state legal theories and to describe in general the factual bases for its claims or defenses)....The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permit the use of contention interrogatories. (Emphasis added) In re Ochoa, No. 12-04-00163-CV (TX 5/28/2004) (Tex. 2004) 5 In particular, the Nos. 1, 2,3, 4,5,6and7 of the April 7, 2023 request for Production of documents are specifically set forth as follows: REQUEST NO. 1:REQUEST NO. 1: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter that Coast Cycle LLC caused damage to the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before March 30, 2023. REQUEST NO. 2: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter that DW OakLawn, LLC regarding repairs to the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit that where the purported responsibility of Coast Cycle LLC pursuant to 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 3 Article 9 of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. REQUEST NO. 3: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. REQUEST NO. 4: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. REQUEST NO. 5: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023. REQUEST NO. 6: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023. REQUEST NO. 7: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s March 29, 2023, March 30, 2023, April 3, 2023 and/or April 5, 2023 letters that Coast Cycle LLC committed any default of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3 2023. 6. DW OakLawn, LLC produced 275 pages of documents on May 9, 2023. Counsel for Coast Cycle LLC requested a privledge log and supplemental documents by e-mail dated May 14, 2023 but DW OakLawn, LLC did not provide the privledge log or the documents. The e-mail dated May 14, 2023 provided: 5-14-23 Amanda: Nice to meet you too. The documentation that Dogwood failed to produce is pretty straightforward: the lease with the new tenant; all drafts of the lease and construction documents and communications with the new tenant prior to the lease being signed and after the lease being signed; all communications with any other party that the landlord was contemplating leasing my client’s space to; and, proof of payment, time of payment and all communications concerning all of the alleged repairs that the landlord alleged were done, including the contact information for all contractors and sub contractors, (Emphasis added) Also no receipts for the correction of alleged damage to the space were produced. (Emphasis added) 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 4 Additionally, Dogwood failed to produce notices that my client specifically sent to Dogwood, for example my May 5, 2023 letter to Dogwood which Gene specifically told me in a telephone conversation later on May 5, 2023 would be included. My client informs me that numerous emails and notices were likewise left out your document production. Please supplement and add these documents so the record is clear and complete. (Emphasis added) Concerning Dogwood’ request for production I am unaware of any such document. It was my understanding that my client’s prior counsel and Dogwood’s counsel had demanded certain documentation by letters and that no one voluntarily produced those documentation because neither would agree. Please send me the request you are referring to. Tam in trial preparation next week and in trial for a specially set trial the entire next week so I will not be back in the office until the first week of June. Please supplement the document production and send me some proposed dates for the first week of June that Gene is able to set up a time to discuss the outstanding discovery issues. Please also provide me a privilege log pursuant to rule 193(b) on or before May 25, 2023. (Emphasis added) Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Tim 7 Counsel for Coast Cycle LLC again requested a privledge log by e-mail dated June 7, 2023 but DW OakLawn, LLC did not provide the privledge log. The e-mail dated June 7, 2023 provided: 6-7-23 Amanda: Nice to talk to you earlier. Attached are the responses and objections dated 3-27-23 that I mentioned. Also, please also provide me a privilege log pursuant to rule 193(b) on or before June 16, 2023. (Emphasis added) We can plan to talk again the week of 6-19-23 around your schedule as you may have deposition(s) that week I understand. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Tim 8 DW OakLawn, LLC produced by supplementation on June 19, 2023 another 552 pages of documents, many of which were simply duplicate copies. Counsel for Coast Cycle LLC 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 5 again requested a privledge log and supplemental documents by e-mail dated July 5, 2023 but DW OakLawn, LLC did not provide the privledge log or the documents. The e-mail dated July 5, 2023 provided: 7-5-23 Amanda: Following up on our June 7, 2023 phone call, unfortunately your client still did not produce any of the documents that we discussed. (Emphasis added) It looks like all that your client did was pad the document production with duplicate copies of many documents so you can ultimately tell the court that you produced over 800 pages of documents when in fact most of the copies are duplicates. You also did not provide me a privilege log pursuant to rule 193(b) on or before June 16, 2023. Based on the supplemental documents that were produced there were significant redactions that need to be dealt with in the privilege log you did provide so please immediately provide the privilege log. In particular see DWOL 341, DWOL 342, DWOL 351, DWOL 374, DWOL 449, DWOL 450, DWOL 454, DWOL 455, and DWOL 456, that need to be addressed in the privilege log plus the other documents that were not produced. In particular you produced no copies of any checks or proof of payment that we discussed. You also produced no copies of the communications on July 11 and the prior drafts and the prior communications with the substitute tenant. Also you did not produce copies of the emails and letters that were sent to your firm by our firm and my client’s prior attorneys’ firm. In particular you also produced no documentation concerning the construction work that was done for the substitute tenant and when this construction work was done. (Emphasis added) Tam unavailable to discuss this week so if you wish to supplement your discovery further this week based upon the documents that we discussed on June 7, 2023 please do. Otherwise I will file a motion to compel and contact you concerning a mutually convenient hearing date. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Tim 9. On July 11, 2023 counsel for Coast Cycle LLC and DW OakLawn, LLC spoke by telephone and counsel for DW OakLawn, LLC agreed to provide the privilege log and supplemental documents by midnight July 14, 2023. After the telephone conversation on July 11, 2023 counsel for Plaintiff sent another email stating that she had misspoke and she was not going to provide anything until July 21, 2023. 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 6 Other Applicable Law 10. Texas black letter from the Twelfth Texas Court of Appeals in Tyler has clearly stated that a party may obtain discovery responses concerning the other party’s legal contentions and factual basis for those contentions. In particular: In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 191.1. A party's legal contentions and the factual bases for those contentions are discoverable. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(j). Even if made or prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, information discoverable under Rule 192.3 concerning a party's contentions is not work product protected from discovery. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5(c)(1). A party may request by disclosure or interrogatory the opinion or contentions ofthe other party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2© (party may request disclosure of legal theories and factual bases of responding party's claims or defenses); Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1 (interrogatory may ask responding party to state legal theories and to describe in general the factual bases for its claims or defenses)....The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permit the use of contention interrogatories. (Emphasis added) In re Ochoa, No. 12-04-00163-CV (TX 5/28/2004) (Tex. 2004) 11. The primary policy behind discovery is to seek truth so that disputes may be decided by facts that are revealed rather than concealed. Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W. 2d 569, 573 (Tex. 1984, orig. proceedings). A party may secure the production of any document, tangible item, or information in electronic or magnetic form that is not privileged and is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence and answers to interrogatories and answers to requests for admissions. TRCP 192.3(a) and 196 and197 and 198. A party is entitled to secure discovery and answers to interrogatories and answers to interrogatories and answers to requests for admissions from another party without court intervention. When a party refuses to comply with proper discovery requests, the party seeking discovery may file a motion to compel the other party to respond. TRCP 215.1(b). An objection that is obscured by numerous unfounded objections is waived unless the court excuses the waiver 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 7 for good cause shown. TRCP 193.2(e) and 196 and197 and 198. Coast Cycle LLC would show that Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s failure to answer and Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC ‘s objections were unfounded and should be overruled, and Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC’s responses were substantively incomplete. Furthermore, the requested discovery is relevant and essential to the preparation of the Coast Cycle LLC’s claims and defenses and evaluation of the case at the present time 12. For the reasons set forth in Coast Cycle LLC’s motion to compel, the documents should be produced. All of the request for production of documents numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 and 7 of the April 7, 2023 request for production of documents are relevant because they basically request information concerning the transactions that are the basis of this suit. Conclusion 13. Pursuant to Rules 192, 193, 194, 196 and 197 and 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Coast Cycle LLC requests that the Court overrule Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC‘ s objections and compel Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC to comply with the discovery requests and requests for production of documents and provide a complete privledge log. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Coast Cycle LLC requests that the Court grant Coast Cycle LLC’s motion to compel discovery from Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC in accordance with Rules 192, 193, 194, 196 and 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Coast Cycle LLC further requests any and all other relief to which it may show itself justly entitled either at law or in equity. 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 8 Respectfully Submitted By: RASHTI AND MITCHELL /s/Timothy Cae T. Mitchell Mitchell Timothy T. chell, Esquire tim@rashtiandmitchell.com Texas State Bar No. 14223000 Donna Kaye Rashti, Esquire donna@rashtiandmitchell.com Texas State Bar No. 16553400 4422 Ridgeside Drive Dallas, Texas 75244 (972) 661-9471 Attorneys for Plaintiff Coast Cycle LLC CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that I have attempted to confer with Amanda Koch, Esq. on July 17, 2023 and July 18, 2023 but she would not speak with me. I hereby certify that I actually spoke with Amanda Koch, Esq on July 11, 2023 and June 7, 2023 and May 14, 2023. I hereby certify that I conferred or have attempted to confer with Amanda Koch, Esq. by e-mail on July 18, 2023, July 17, 2023, july 16, 2023, July 15, 2023, July 14, 2023, July 11, 2023, July 10, 2023 , July 5, 2023, June 7, 2023, and May 14, 2023 by e-mail. I hereby certify that Amanda Koch, Esq. does oppose the relief requested herein. Despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve the matters presented. Certified to the 18th Day of July, 2023, By: /s/Timothy T. Mitchell Timothy T. Mitchell, Attorney for Plaintiff Coast Cycle LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to the following as of this the 18" day of July 2023 via electronic service through the court website as indicated below: Gene Blanton, Esq. Mira Blanton PLLC 8235 Douglas Ave, Suite 805 Dallas, Texas 75225 gene.blanton@mirablanton.com. Tel 214-432-5674 /s/Timothy T. Mitchell Timothy T. Mitchell, Attorney for Coast Cycle LLC 7-18-23RequestProductionDocuments Page 9 CAUSE NO. DC-22-13539 COAST CYCLE, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, ve DW OAK LAWN, LLC, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS v. BILL GORMAN, MARISA WAYNE, AND SABRINA ROY Third Party Defendants, 1928? DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION To: Coast Cycle, LLC by and through its attorneys of record Dylan French, Timothy T. Mitchell and Donna Kaye Rashti, 4422 Ridgeside Drive, Dallas, Texas 75244, Tel.: (972) 661 - 9471, via email and electronic filing system. Pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant DW Oak Lawn, LLC (“DWOL”) provides the following Responses to Coast Cycle, LLC’s Request for Production. Respectfully submitted, MIRA BLANTON PLLC By /s/ Amanda M. Koch Patrick E. “Gene” Blanton State Bar No. 24058209 gene.blanton@mirablanton.com Amanda M. Koch State Bar No. 24051089 amanda.koch@mirablanton.com 8235 Douglas Ave., Ste 805 Dallas, TX 75225 Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page| 1 (Telephone) (214) 432-5674 (Facsimile) (214) 225-4302 ATTORNEYS FOR DW OAK LAWN, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A correct copy of this filing was served on all known counsel of record through either the electronic filing manager or via e-mail on this 9" day of May, 2023. /s/ Amanda M. Koch Amanda M. Koch GLOBAL OBJECTIONS 1 DWOL does not intend to, nor does it, waive its attorney-client privilege or application of the work product doctrine in responding to these Requests. Inadvertent disclosure of any information that is privileged, which constitutes attorney work product, or which is otherwise exempt from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or other applicable objection to the disclosure of such information or the subject matter thereof, or the information contained herein, or the right of DWOL to object to the use of any such information during subsequent proceedings herein. 2 These Responses are made without waiver of any objections DWOL may have with respect to any subsequent attempted use of these Responses, and DWOL specifically reserves all questions as to the competency, privilege, relevance, materiality, and admissibility of the Requests, including without limitation, the right to object to the use of these Responses or documents referenced herein in any subsequent proceedings in this lawsuit or any other lawsuit, and the right to object on any and all privileged grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures relating to the Responses referenced herein. DWOL also reserves the right, at any time and upon proper showing, to revise, correct, or clarify the following Responses. 3 DWOL objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to seck confidential, technical, financial, marketing, trade secret or similar information (“confidential and/or proprietary information”). 4 DWOL objects to each Request to the extent that it may assume the existence and truth of unverified facts and allegations. In responding to any such Request, whether the response is in the affirmative or the negative, DWOL does not admit the facts stated, implied, or assumed within the Request as being true or accurate. Responses made to any such Request containing such assumptions and allegations shall not be construed as an admission that any definition, assumption, or statement contained in the Request is either factually correct or legally binding on DWOL. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 2 5, DWOL objects to the Requests in their entirety insofar as they address matters and/or seek information that is within the knowledge, possession, custody, or control of third parties, former employees of those third parties, or DWOL’s own former employees and/or representatives who are not within DWOL’s control, on the ground that such Requests impose an undue and oppressive burden of discovery upon DWOL. 6. In responding to these Requests, DWOL does not concede that the information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any Response, in whole or in part, to any Request is not intended to be and should not be construed as a waiver by DWOL of all or any part of any objection to any Request. DWOL reserves all objections to the admissibility of any Responses, including without limitation, objections of relevance and materiality. In addition, DWOL expressly reserves both the right to object to further discovery and to the subject matter of these Requests and the right to object to the introduction of any documents produced in response to these Requests. DWOL further reserves the right to supplement any and all responses if relevant, responsive and non-privileged information becomes available. 7 DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 2 seeking to have DWOL produce materials from “third parties whom [DWOL] has a superior right to compel production, such as [DWOL’s] agents, insurers, clients, principals, representatives, security contractors, contractors, and, unless privileged, attomeys. This instruction not only exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, but is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, is confusing, is in no way limited to DWOL as a party to this lawsuit, and seeks to have Defendant conduct discovery for which Plaintiff bears the burden. 8 DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 4 which states the “requests refer to the time, place, and circumstances of the occurrence described in Plaintiff's Original Petition and any amendments thereto,” and thus fails to even remotely specify appropriate limits for its requests. Plaintiff's vague reference to a 240-page filing, which lacks clarity and specifics, does not adequately frame any request for production, exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case. 9 DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 5, which exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, is vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing, calls for speculation, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case. 10. DWOL objects to Plaintiff’s Instruction No. 6, which exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, as well as violates the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3, and is vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing, calls for speculation, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page |3 lL. DWOL objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 7, which exceeds the bounds of discovery via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, is directed at an unknown entity, “Phoenix Communications, Inc.,” is vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing, calls for speculation, is confusing, and is an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case. 12. DWOL objects to Definition Nos. 2 —5, to the extent the terms encompass DW Oak Lawn, LLC.’s former employees that are no longer subject to Defendant, exceed the bounds of discovery via a request for production as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196, are vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing, call for speculation, are confusing, and are an improper attempt by Plaintiff to shirk and shift its discovery burdens in this case. 13: The foregoing objections apply to each and every response herein. Subject to these objections and to any additional objections made in response to specific Requests, DWOL responds as follows: RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter that Coast Cycle LLC caused damage to the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before March 30, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request as vague, calling for speculation, compound, and confusing in that Plaintiff has neither properly referenced, defined or attached “your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter,” nor identified any recipients of same. DWOL further objects as “all documents and/or communications...relating to your claims” is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 8.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see documents produced herewith. DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. REQUEST NO. 2: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter that DW OakLawn, LLC regarding repairs to the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit that Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production Page| 4 where the purported responsibility of Coast Cycle LLC pursuant to Article 9 of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request. as compound, vague, calling for speculation, and confusing in that Plaintiff has neither properly referenced, defined or attached “your attorney’s April 3, 2023 letter,” or identified any recipients of same. DWOL further objects as “all documents and/or communications...relating to your claims” is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, is not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 §.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see documents produced herewith. DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. REQUEST NO. 3: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request as “all documents and/or communications...relating to any communication with any third parties” and without limiting same to a specific time frame or any category of third party is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing and not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Additionally, this request is compound and misleading. Moreover, this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to any communication” improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 §.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, please see documents produced herewith with regard to DWOL’s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219, following Plaintiff's abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort to mitigate DWOL’s damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page |5 REQUEST NO. 4: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request as compound, misleading, vague, calling for speculation, and confusing in that Plaintiff has neither properly referenced or defined “then existing tenants” to appropriately define the time period referenced. DWOL further objects as “all documents and/or communications. ..relating to any communication” and without limiting same to a specific time frame is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, is not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-end ed request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, please see documents produced herewith with regard to DWOL’s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219, following Plaintiffs abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort to mitigate its damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. REQUEST NO. 5: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any third parties to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to any communication with any third parties” as calling for speculation, overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing and not properly limited in scope so as to lead to the discover y of relevant and admissible evidence. More specifically, Plaintiff has not identified any category of third party so as to provide any reasonable particularity to this request. Moreover, this request for “all documents and/or communications. ..relating to any communication” improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expediti on prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defenda nts object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or consider ed to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privile; ‘ge, attorney-client privilege or consultin g expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waivin; ig same, please see documen ts produced herewith with regard to DWOL’ s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219, following Plaintiff's abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 6 to mitigate its damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. REQUEST NO. 6: All documents and/or communications relating to any communication with any then existing tenants of DW OakLawn, LLC to potentially lease the premises that are the subject of this lawsuit on or after April 3, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to any communication” in that it improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K- Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 8.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, please see documents produced herewith with regard to DWOL’s reletting of 3303 Lee Parkway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219, following Plaintiff's abandonment and/or vacating of the premises on March 29, 2023 in an effort to mitigate its damages resulting from Coast Cycle’s default. Discovery is ongoing and DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged information should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. REQUEST NO. 7: All documents and/or communications and/or invoices and/or proof of payment by DW OakLawn, LLC relating to your claims in your attorney’s March 29, 2023, March 30, 2023, April 3, 2023 and/or April 5, 2023 letters that Coast Cycle LLC committed any default of the lease that is the subject of this lawsuit on or before April 3, 2023. RESPONSE: DWOL objects to this request for “all documents...relating to your claims” in that it improperly seeks to have DWOL marshal all of its evidence prior to trial, is entirely overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, harassing and not properly limited in time, scope or duration so as to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and is an improper fishing expedition prohibited by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. See K-Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Additionally, this request is compound, calls for speculation, and is confusing in that Plaintiff has neither properly referenced, defined or attached “your attorney’s March 29, 2023, March 30, 2023, April 3, 2023 and/or April 5, 2023 letters,” or identified any recipients of same. Moreover, this request for “all documents and/or communications...relating to your claims” Finally, given the global nature of this unlimited and open-ended request, Defendants object to the extent it seeks materials that are confidential, proprietary, or considered to be a trade secret, or violates the work-product privilege, attorney-client privilege or consulting expert privilege, all of which are hereby asserted. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see documents produced herewith. DWOL reserves its right to amend or supplement this answer with nonprivileged informati on Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 7 a should Plaintiff identify a narrowly tailored and relevant category of information sought. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production Page | 8 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Timothy Mitchell on behalf of Timothy Mitchell Bar No. 14223000 tim@rashtiandmitchell.com Envelope ID: 77653568 Filing Code Description: Motion - Compel Filing Description: COAST CYCLE LLCS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT DW OAK LAWN, LLC Status as of 7/19/2023 9:07 AM CST Associated Case Party: COAST CYCLE, LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Donna KRashti donna@rashtiandmitchell.com | 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM | SENT Timothy TMitchell tim@rashtiandmitchell.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM | SENT Associated Case Party: DW OAK LAWN, LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Jadd Fitzgerald Masso | 24041411 jmasso@clarkhill.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT Gene Blanton gene.blanton@mirablanton.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT Amanda Koch amanda.koch@mirablanton.com 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT ‘Adylene Hovland adylene.hoviand@mirablanton.com | 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM SENT Associated Case Party: DW OAK LAWN LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Elizabeth F.Griffin egriffin@clarkhill.com | 7/18/2023 8:14:08 PM | SENT