Document for SCHRAM ET AL V VENTAS ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                3/20/2015 1:54:16 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-005444 D-1-GN-14-005444

SCHRAM MCDONNELL, LLC dba § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AUSTIN ORTHOPEDIC
SPECIALISTS; RICHARD SCHRAM,
MD, PA; RICHARD SCHRAM MD,
individually; GEORGE
MUNDANTHANAM MD, PA;
GEORGE MUNDANTHANAM, MD,
individually; JOSH CRUM, MD, PA;
JOSH CRUM MD, individually; MARK
MCDONNELL, DPM, PA; MARK
MCDONNELL DPM, individually;
SOUTH OAKS FAMILY MEDICINE
PA; GEOFFREY COX MD,
individually; and ASHLEY STEIGLER
MD, individually

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§
Plaintiffs, §
§

v. §
§
VENTAS, INC.; LILLIBRIDGE §
HEALTHCARE REAL ESTATE §
TRUST, LP; LHRET ASCENSION §
AUSTIN PARTNER GP, LLC; LHRET §§
ASCENSION AUSTIN PARTNER II §
GP, LLC; LHRET ASCENSION §
AUSTIN, LP; LHRET ASCENSION §
AUSTIN I, LP; THL 191 JV, LLC; §
LHRET 191, LLC; LILLIBRIDGE §
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; and §
DAN METEVIER §
§

§

Defendants 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIONTO THE HONORABLE COURT:

1. Pursuant to Rule 192.6 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby move for
protection from Defendants’ use of discovery as a tool of harassment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.
Plaintiffs submit that that Defendants' 120 sets of interrogatories are unnecessarily duplicative,
harassing, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs ask that in lieu of answering 120 sets of identical
interrogatories, that each Plaintiff provide one written response distinguishing between the 12
Defendants when appropriate.

BACKGROUND

2. This case is based on a lease-to-own, bait-and-switch con. Plaintiffs are medical doctors
and affiliated professional associations and business entities. The Defendants are all in the
business of medical real estate development. One segment of their business is the acquisition,
development, and management of medical office buildings; referred to by the acronym “MOB.”
The Defendants defrauded Plaintiffs, causing them to pay excessive rents and other consideration
in exchange for a promised option to purchase equity interest in certain MOBs on Seton
Southwest Campus in Austin, Texas. This misconduct forms the bases of Plaintiffs' claims.

3. Plaintiffs have sued (A) Defendant Lillibridge Healthcare Services Inc. and its various
subsidiaries and affiliates it utilized in connection with the development and management of the
Seton's Southwest Campus MOBs; (B) Defendant Dan Metevier, vice president of development
of Defendant Lillibridge Healthcare Services Inc. with whom Plaintiffs interacted; (C) and
Defendant Ventas Inc., which in 2010 acquired Defendants Lillibridge Healthcare Services Inc.
and its subsidiaries, including the other corporate defendants named herein. Plaintiffs rely on

principles of agency and successor liability.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection Page 1ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

4. Of the 264 identical written sets of discovery, Plaintiffs request relief only with respect to
the 120 sets of interrogatories. Each of the 12 Defendants has separately issued 25 identical
interrogatories to each of the 10 Plaintiffs. The only variations are the names of the Plaintiffs
and Defendants identified in each respective request; in all other respects the 120 sets of
interrogatories are identical. The discovery requests are too voluminous to attach here, but
copies will be provided to the Court at the hearing on this matter.

5. Plaintiffs propose that in lieu of 12 sets of interrogatory responses, each Plaintiff be
permitted to provide one set of written responses, distinguishing between Defendants as
applicable. Defendants rejected this proposal, which prompted the filing of this Motion.

6. The Court should exercise its discretion and issue a protective order because this
discovery is harassing, unnecessarily duplicative, and unduly burdensome. Tex. R. Civ. P.
192.4(a), (b), 192.6(b); see also, e.g. In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 §.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex.
1999).

7. The 120 sets of interrogatories contain 3,000 separate interrogatories. Each Plaintiff is
being asked to separately answer and swear to 300 interrogatories (12 sets of 25 substantially
identical interrogatories). The duplicative requests do not justify the burden and expense of
drafting, organizing, and ensuring the accuracy of so many written responses. As stated,
Plaintiffs rely on principles of agency and successor liability and will distinguish amongst the

Defendants when necessary.

PRAYER

8. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to relieve them of the burden of
separately answering the 120 identical sets of interrogatories and instead permit each Plaintiff to

provide one set of written responses, distinguishing between Defendants when appropriate.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection Page 29. Additionally, pursuant to Rules 215.2(b)(8) and 215.3, Plaintiffs requests that the Court
order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the review and organization of the 120 sets of interrogatories and the preparation

and hearing of this Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

TAYLOR DUNHAM AND RODRIGUEZ LLP
301 Congress Avenue

Suite 1050

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 473-2257

Facsimile: (512) 478-4409

    
 

‘ Donald R. Taylor
State Bar No. 19688800

dtaylor@taylordunham.com,
Isabelle M. Antongiorgi

State Bar No. 24059386

ima@taylordunham.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection Page 3NOTICE OF HEARING

Please take notice that a hearing has been set on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection on
April 2, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. 40 minutes have been allotted for the hearing.

Cootsy-

Isabelle M. Antongiorgi

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify I communicated with Defendants' counsel regarding the
relief requested herein, who informed me that Defendants would not agree to the proposed
modification. Pursuant to Travis County District Court Local Rule 2.2, I certify that I conferred
with counsel for Defendants and they agree to the April 2, 2015 hearing setting for Plaintiffs’

Motion for Protection.

Isabelle M. Antongiorgi

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection Page 4CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys of
record by delivering a true and correct copy via email on this the 20th day of March, 2015, as
follows:

Lloyd E. Ferguson. Roger Stetson

Buddy.Ferguson@strasburger.com roger.stetson@bfkn.com

Strasburger & Price, LLP Matthew Singer

720 Brazos Street matthew.singer@bfkn.com

Suite 700 Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP
Austin, Texas 78701-2974 200 West Madison Street

Attorneys for Defendants Suite 3900

Chicago, Illinois 60606
Attorneys for Defendants

Coty

Isabelle M. Antongiorgi

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection Page 5