Preview
CAUSE NO. 2018-06512
RSS MSBAM2014C17-TX HAH, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
Vv.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON AIRPORT HOSPITALITY
LP, PACIFICA HOSTS, INC. AND
PACIFICA HARBOR VIEW TWO L.P.,
Defendants. 1338” JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH
PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENAS TO SCS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC., W.
BERRIOS MECHANICAL, LLC, AND A. AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Defendants, Houston Airport Hospitality LP, Pacifica Hosts, Inc., and Pacific Harbor View
Two L.P. (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, as parties affected by the
subpoena, hereby ask this Court to protect them and quash Plaintiffs Subpoenas to SCS
Environmental Consultants, Inc., W. Berrios Mechanical, LLC, and A. Affordable Construction,
Inc. which were filed on October 4, 2015.
I BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2018 Plaintiff filed with this Court the following Notice of Intent to
Subpoena to the following non-parties:
a. SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc.
b. W. Berrios Mechanical, LLC
c. A. Affordable Construction, Inc.The requests to these non-parties are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not properly
limited in time or scope, ambiguous, and seek documents which can be and have already been
obtained through discovery to Defendants.
A court has discretion to protect a party with a Protective Order pursuant to Tex. R. Civ.
P. 192.6. A court has the authority to limit the scope of distribution of discovery based on the needs
and circumstances of the case. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192 cmt. 7. Defendants ask this Court for a
Protective order as the requests propounded by Plaintiff's are improper as specified more fully
hereinbelow. A protective order is proper under Tex. R. Civ. P. 192. Further, pursuant to Tex. R.
Civ. P. 192, any party affected by a subpoena has the right to object and move that such subpoena
be quashed. As Defendants are undoubtedly affected by the disclosure of the requested
information, they have standing to bring this motion.
I. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA _TO SCS ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Request No. 1. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to the services provided
by You at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is unduly burdensome as it could just as easily be answered
by Defendants making a third-party subpoena unnecessary. Objecting further, such request is
overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines
communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the
subpoenaed party.
Request No. 2. All documents relating to amounts that had been owed by Defendant to You for
work performed at the Property, including any accounts receivable aging reports.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that
definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts owed to the subpoenaed party are not
at issue in this case.Request No. 3. All documents reflecting amounts paid to You for work performed at the
Property.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that
definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts paid to the subpoenaed party are not
at issue in this case.
Request No. 4. All photographs or video recordings of the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope.
Request No. 5. All communications between You and FDR Construction, Inc. relating to the
work the Property.
Defendants object as such request is vague and nonsensical. Objecting further, such request is
overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines
communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party
and FDR Construction, Inc. have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 6. All results of any tests You performed at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope.
Defendants further object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term
“tests”.
Request No. 7. All reports You issued relating to the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope.
Defendants further object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term
“tests”.
Request No. 8. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to this lawsuit.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going
so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, Defendants object to
the extent that any such communications are protected by the work-product doctrine.Il. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO W. BERRIOS MECHANICAL,
LLC
Request No. 1. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to the services provided
by You at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is unduly burdensome as it could just as easily be answered
by Defendants making a third-party subpoena unnecessary. Objecting further, such request is
overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines
communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the
subpoenaed party.
Request No. 2. All documents relating to amounts that had been owed by Defendant to You for
work performed at the Property, including any accounts receivable aging reports.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that
definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts owed to the subpoenaed party are not
at issue in this case.
Request No.3. All documents reflecting amounts paid to You for work performed at the
Property.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that
definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts paid to the subpoenaed party are not
at issue in this case.
Request No. 4. All communications between You and FDR Construction, Inc. relating to the
work performed or to be performed at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request
social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between
the subpoenaed party and FDR Construction, Inc. have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 5. All internal communication relating to the Property.Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request
social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any internal communications
of the subpoenaed party have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 6. All communications between You and any employees at the Property relating to
work performed or to be performed at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term
“employees” and it is impossible to determine whose employees that Plaintiff is referring.
Objecting further, to the extent the term employee refers to employees of Defendants, the request
is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Such request is overly
broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines
communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party
and unknown employees have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 7. All photographs or video recordings of the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope.
Request No. 8. All communications between You and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc.
relating to the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request
social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between
the subpoenaed party and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 9. Any complaints You filed against any of the Defendants.
Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term
‘complaints” and it is impossible to determine what type of complaints to which Plaintiff is
referring. Objecting further, to the extent the term complaints refers to lawsuits filed against
Defendants, such information would be a public record and equally available to Plaintiff as the
subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request is overly broad
due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Finally, this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any
complaints filed by the subpoenaed party would have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 10. Any liens you filed against the Property.Defendants object as such information would be a public record and equally available to
Plaintiff as the subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request
is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope.
Request No. 11. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to this lawsuit.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going
so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, Defendants object to
the extent that any such communications are protected by the work-product doctrine.
Ill. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TOA. AFFORDABLE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Request No. 1. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to the services provided
by You at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is unduly burdensome as it could just as easily be answered
by Defendants making a third-party subpoena unnecessary. Objecting further, such request is
overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines
communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the
subpoenaed party.
Request No. 2. All documents relating to amounts that had been owed by Defendant to You for
work performed at the Property, including any accounts receivable aging reports.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that
definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts owed to the subpoenaed party are not
at issue in this case.
Request No. 3. All documents reflecting amounts paid to You for work performed at the
Property.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that
definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts paid to the subpoenaed party are not
at issue in this case.Request No. 4. All communications between You and FDR Construction, Inc. relating to the
work performed or to be performed at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request
social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between
the subpoenaed party and FDR Construction, Inc. have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 5. All internal communication relating to the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request
social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any internal communications
of the subpoenaed party have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 6. All communications between You and any employees at the Property relating to
work performed or to be performed at the Property.
Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term
“employees” and it is impossible to determine whose employees that Plaintiff is referring.
Objecting further, to the extent the term employee refers to employees of Defendants, the request
is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Such request is overly
broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines
communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the
subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party
and unknown employees have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 7. All photographs or video recordings of the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope.
Request No. 8. All communications between You and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc.
relating to the Property.
Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited
in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request
social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between
the subpoenaed party and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 9. Any complaints You filed against any of the Defendants.Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term
“complaints” and it is impossible to determine what type of complaints to which Plaintiff is
referring. Objecting further, to the extent the term complaints refers to lawsuits filed against
Defendants, such information would be a public record and equally available to Plaintiff as the
subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request is overly broad
due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Finally, this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any
complaints filed by the subpoenaed party would have no bearing on this case.
Request No. 10. Any liens you filed against the Property.
Defendants object as such information would be a public record and equally available to
Plaintiff as the subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request
is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope.
Request No. 11. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to this lawsuit.
Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by
Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not
reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going
so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, Defendants object to
the extent that any such communications are protected by the work-product doctrine.
IV. REQUESTED PROTECTION
A court has broad discretion to protect a person with a protective order. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 192.6(b). A court can (1) prohibit the discovery sought, in whole or in part, (2) limit the extent
or subject matter of discovery, (3) order that discovery not be undertaken at the time or place
specified, (4) set terms or condition on the discovery, (5) order the results of discovery to be sealed
or otherwise protected, and (6) make any other order in the interest of justice. Jd. As specified
hereinabove, Plaintiffs requests are highly objectionable. The are overly broad, harassing, seeking
protected information, ambiguous, and, importantly, not limited in time or scope causing the
subpoenaed parties to search years of information, much of which is not relevant to this case.
Accordingly, Defendants ask this Court to sign a protective order that prohibits the discovery
sought in whole or, at least, in part.Further, Defendants request that the Court Quash the subpoenas because the discovery
sought seeks information and production of information and documents that are not relevant to
this matter, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are so broad
they seek information well outside the scope of this case, can be obtained through less burdensome
means, is vague, and is not properly limited.
Wo PRAYER
For these reasons, Defendants ask the Court to grant this motion for protective order and
to quash and to issue an order protecting Defendants by granting the relief requested in this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
jpalter@palterlaw.com
KIMBERLY M.J. SIMS
State Bar No. 24046167
ksims@palterlaw.com
PALTER SIMS MARTINEZ PLLC
8115 Preston Road, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75225-8009
Tel: 214-888-3106
Fax: 214-888-3109
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
HOUSTON AIRPORT HOSPITALITY LP,
PACIFICA HOSTS, INC., AND PACIFICA
HARBOR VIEW TWO LPCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Original
Answer was served on counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
on November 14, 2018.
c\/
Jol alter
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2018-06512 RSS MSBAM2014C17-TX HAH, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS HOUSTON AIRPORT HOSPITALITY LP, PACIFICA HOSTS, INC. AND PACIFICA HARBOR VIEW TWO L.P., Defendants. 1338” JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENAS TO SCS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC., W. BERRIOS MECHANICAL, LLC, AND A. AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Defendants, Houston Airport Hospitality LP, Pacifica Hosts, Inc., and Pacific Harbor View Two L.P. (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, as parties affected by the subpoena, hereby ask this Court to protect them and quash Plaintiffs Subpoenas to SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc., W. Berrios Mechanical, LLC, and A. Affordable Construction, Inc. which were filed on October 4, 2015. I BACKGROUND On October 4, 2018 Plaintiff filed with this Court the following Notice of Intent to Subpoena to the following non-parties: a. SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. b. W. Berrios Mechanical, LLC c. A. Affordable Construction, Inc.The requests to these non-parties are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not properly limited in time or scope, ambiguous, and seek documents which can be and have already been obtained through discovery to Defendants. A court has discretion to protect a party with a Protective Order pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6. A court has the authority to limit the scope of distribution of discovery based on the needs and circumstances of the case. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192 cmt. 7. Defendants ask this Court for a Protective order as the requests propounded by Plaintiff's are improper as specified more fully hereinbelow. A protective order is proper under Tex. R. Civ. P. 192. Further, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, any party affected by a subpoena has the right to object and move that such subpoena be quashed. As Defendants are undoubtedly affected by the disclosure of the requested information, they have standing to bring this motion. I. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA _TO SCS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Request No. 1. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to the services provided by You at the Property. Defendants object as such request is unduly burdensome as it could just as easily be answered by Defendants making a third-party subpoena unnecessary. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Request No. 2. All documents relating to amounts that had been owed by Defendant to You for work performed at the Property, including any accounts receivable aging reports. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts owed to the subpoenaed party are not at issue in this case.Request No. 3. All documents reflecting amounts paid to You for work performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts paid to the subpoenaed party are not at issue in this case. Request No. 4. All photographs or video recordings of the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope. Request No. 5. All communications between You and FDR Construction, Inc. relating to the work the Property. Defendants object as such request is vague and nonsensical. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and FDR Construction, Inc. have no bearing on this case. Request No. 6. All results of any tests You performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope. Defendants further object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term “tests”. Request No. 7. All reports You issued relating to the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope. Defendants further object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term “tests”. Request No. 8. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to this lawsuit. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, Defendants object to the extent that any such communications are protected by the work-product doctrine.Il. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO W. BERRIOS MECHANICAL, LLC Request No. 1. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to the services provided by You at the Property. Defendants object as such request is unduly burdensome as it could just as easily be answered by Defendants making a third-party subpoena unnecessary. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Request No. 2. All documents relating to amounts that had been owed by Defendant to You for work performed at the Property, including any accounts receivable aging reports. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts owed to the subpoenaed party are not at issue in this case. Request No.3. All documents reflecting amounts paid to You for work performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts paid to the subpoenaed party are not at issue in this case. Request No. 4. All communications between You and FDR Construction, Inc. relating to the work performed or to be performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and FDR Construction, Inc. have no bearing on this case. Request No. 5. All internal communication relating to the Property.Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any internal communications of the subpoenaed party have no bearing on this case. Request No. 6. All communications between You and any employees at the Property relating to work performed or to be performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term “employees” and it is impossible to determine whose employees that Plaintiff is referring. Objecting further, to the extent the term employee refers to employees of Defendants, the request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and unknown employees have no bearing on this case. Request No. 7. All photographs or video recordings of the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope. Request No. 8. All communications between You and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. relating to the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. have no bearing on this case. Request No. 9. Any complaints You filed against any of the Defendants. Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term ‘complaints” and it is impossible to determine what type of complaints to which Plaintiff is referring. Objecting further, to the extent the term complaints refers to lawsuits filed against Defendants, such information would be a public record and equally available to Plaintiff as the subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any complaints filed by the subpoenaed party would have no bearing on this case. Request No. 10. Any liens you filed against the Property.Defendants object as such information would be a public record and equally available to Plaintiff as the subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Request No. 11. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to this lawsuit. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, Defendants object to the extent that any such communications are protected by the work-product doctrine. Ill. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TOA. AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. Request No. 1. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to the services provided by You at the Property. Defendants object as such request is unduly burdensome as it could just as easily be answered by Defendants making a third-party subpoena unnecessary. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Request No. 2. All documents relating to amounts that had been owed by Defendant to You for work performed at the Property, including any accounts receivable aging reports. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts owed to the subpoenaed party are not at issue in this case. Request No. 3. All documents reflecting amounts paid to You for work performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines documents in an overly broad sense such that definition seeks the production of every document of any type or form in the possession of the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any amounts paid to the subpoenaed party are not at issue in this case.Request No. 4. All communications between You and FDR Construction, Inc. relating to the work performed or to be performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and FDR Construction, Inc. have no bearing on this case. Request No. 5. All internal communication relating to the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any internal communications of the subpoenaed party have no bearing on this case. Request No. 6. All communications between You and any employees at the Property relating to work performed or to be performed at the Property. Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term “employees” and it is impossible to determine whose employees that Plaintiff is referring. Objecting further, to the extent the term employee refers to employees of Defendants, the request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and unknown employees have no bearing on this case. Request No. 7. All photographs or video recordings of the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad as it is not properly limited in time or scope. Request No. 8. All communications between You and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. relating to the Property. Defendants object as such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any communications between the subpoenaed party and SCS Environmental Consultants, Inc. have no bearing on this case. Request No. 9. Any complaints You filed against any of the Defendants.Defendants object as such request is ambiguous as the request fails to define the term “complaints” and it is impossible to determine what type of complaints to which Plaintiff is referring. Objecting further, to the extent the term complaints refers to lawsuits filed against Defendants, such information would be a public record and equally available to Plaintiff as the subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Finally, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is irrelevant to the Lawsuit as any complaints filed by the subpoenaed party would have no bearing on this case. Request No. 10. Any liens you filed against the Property. Defendants object as such information would be a public record and equally available to Plaintiff as the subpoenaed party making the request unduly burdensome. Further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Request No. 11. All communications with any of the Defendants relating to this lawsuit. Defendants object as such request is duplicative of requests already sent to and answered by Defendants. Objecting further, such request is overly broad due to the fact that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope and defines communications in an overly broad sense going so far as to request social media posts from the subpoenaed party. Finally, Defendants object to the extent that any such communications are protected by the work-product doctrine. IV. REQUESTED PROTECTION A court has broad discretion to protect a person with a protective order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b). A court can (1) prohibit the discovery sought, in whole or in part, (2) limit the extent or subject matter of discovery, (3) order that discovery not be undertaken at the time or place specified, (4) set terms or condition on the discovery, (5) order the results of discovery to be sealed or otherwise protected, and (6) make any other order in the interest of justice. Jd. As specified hereinabove, Plaintiffs requests are highly objectionable. The are overly broad, harassing, seeking protected information, ambiguous, and, importantly, not limited in time or scope causing the subpoenaed parties to search years of information, much of which is not relevant to this case. Accordingly, Defendants ask this Court to sign a protective order that prohibits the discovery sought in whole or, at least, in part.Further, Defendants request that the Court Quash the subpoenas because the discovery sought seeks information and production of information and documents that are not relevant to this matter, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are so broad they seek information well outside the scope of this case, can be obtained through less burdensome means, is vague, and is not properly limited. Wo PRAYER For these reasons, Defendants ask the Court to grant this motion for protective order and to quash and to issue an order protecting Defendants by granting the relief requested in this motion. Respectfully submitted, jpalter@palterlaw.com KIMBERLY M.J. SIMS State Bar No. 24046167 ksims@palterlaw.com PALTER SIMS MARTINEZ PLLC 8115 Preston Road, Suite 600 Dallas, Texas 75225-8009 Tel: 214-888-3106 Fax: 214-888-3109 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HOUSTON AIRPORT HOSPITALITY LP, PACIFICA HOSTS, INC., AND PACIFICA HARBOR VIEW TWO LPCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Original Answer was served on counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on November 14, 2018. c\/ Jol alter