Preview
CAUSE NO. -15-07174
JOHN DOE I, individually and as next IN THE 44 JUDICIAL
friend of JOHN DOE II, a minor,
Plaintiff(s),
DISTRICT COURT
THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL,
WILLIAMS c. ANDERSON,
individually, LEVONNA C.
ANDERSON, individually,
ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON,
individually, RIPLEY DALLS COUNTY, TEXAS
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and JIM
PATTISON U.S.A., INC.
Defendants.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA AND
DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS, MOTION TO QUASH, AND
MOTION PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk (“the DA”) to file
her Objections to Subpoena and Deposition by Written Questions, Motion to Quash, and
for Protective Order in the above styled and numbered cause. In support thereof,
would show the Court the following:
BACKGROUND
The DA, a nonparty to the instant litigation, was served with a Deposition
Subpoena to Testify or Produce Documents or Things and Notice to take Deposition by
Written Question on or about March 16, 2016. A. Defendants Ripley’s
ISTRICT TTORNEY USAN AWK S BJECTIONS TO RIAL UBPOENA OTION TO UASH,
OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AUSE -07174 Page 1
Entertainment, Inc. and Jim Pattison USA, Inc. request production of any and all records
pertaining to:
The incident that occurred at the Ripley’s Believe [sic] or Not in Grand
Prairie, Texas on October 31, 2014 involving John Doe, II, a minor, and
Alexander Allen Anderson; DOB: 11/14/1986.
Exhibit A, p. 2.
As stated in the attached sworn affidavit executed by Assistant District Attorney
Rachel Burris, Alexander Allen Anderson has not been indicted or otherwise charged as a
result of the alleged incident, which is the subject of the subpoena. Exhibit B, p. 2.
Responsive records, if any, would be contained in the DA’s Office’s Grand Jury File.
Such grand jury files, if any, are confidential by law and cannot be disclosed. Exhibit B,
p. 2. Moreover, records concerning an ongoing criminal investigation into the alleged
incident are also privileged law enforcement records as release of such documents would
interfere with the detection, investigation, and prosecution of a crime. Exhibit B, p. 4. In
the alternative, any attorney work product in the possession of the DA also is not
discoverable.
II.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
A. THE SUBPOENA AND DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS SHOULD BE
QUASHED BECAUSE THE DA DOES NOT HAVE A PROSECUTION FILE ON
THE REQUESTED INDIVIDUAL AND GRAND JURY RECORDS, IF ANY,
CANNOT BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO TEXAS LAW.
As stated by Assistant District Attorney Burris, the DA does not possess any
prosecution files regarding the requested individual. Exhibit B, p. 2. Article 20.02 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the strict confidentiality of grand jury
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 2
records and proceedings and sets forth criminal and monetary penalties for the release of
such records:
Art. 20.02. Proceedings Secret.
(a) The proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret.
(b) A grand juror, bailiff, interpreter, stenographer or person operating
an electronic recording device, person preparing a typewritten
transcription of a stenographic or electronic recording, or person
operating a video teleconferencing system for use under Article
20.151 who discloses anything transpiring before the grand jury,
regardless of whether the thing transpiring is recorded, in the course
of the official duties of the grand jury, is liable to a fine as for
contempt of the court, not exceeding $500, imprisonment not
exceeding 30 days, or both the fine and imprisonment.
(c) A disclosure of a record made under Article 20.012, a disclosure of a
typewritten transcription of that record, or a disclosure otherwise
prohibited by Subsection (b) or Article 20.16 may be made by the
attorney representing the state in performing the attorney’s duties to
a grand juror serving on the grand jury before whom the record was
made, another grand jury, a law enforcement agency, or a
prosecuting attorney, as permitted by the attorney representing the
state and determined by the attorney as necessary to assist the
attorney in the performance of the attorney’s duties. The attorney
representing the state shall warn any person the attorney authorizes
to receive information under this subsection of the person’s duty to
maintain the secrecy of the information. Any person who receives
information under this subsection and discloses the information for
purposes other than those permitted by this subsection is subject to
punishment for contempt in the same manner as persons who violate
Subsection (b).
(d) The defendant may petition a court to order the disclosure of
information otherwise made secret by this article or the disclosure of
a recording or typewritten transcription under Article 20.012 as a
matter preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.
The court may order disclosure of the information, recording, or
transcription on a showing by the defendant of a particularized need.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 3
(e) A petition for disclosure under Subsection (d) must be filed in the
district court in which the case is pending. The defendant must also
file a copy of the petition with the attorney representing the state, the
parties to the judicial proceeding, and any other persons required by
the court to receive a copy of the petition. All persons receiving a
petition under this subsection are entitled to appear before the court.
The court shall provide interested parties with an opportunity to
appear and present arguments for the continuation of or end to the
requirement of secrecy.
(f) A person who receives information under Subsection (d) or (e) and
discloses that information is subject to punishment for contempt in
the same manner as a person who violates Subsection (b).
(g) The attorney representing the state may not disclose anything
transpiring before the grand jury except as permitted by
Subsections (c), (d), and (e).
(h) A subpoena or summons relating to a grand jury proceeding or
investigation must be kept secret to the extent and for as long as
necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter before
the grand jury. This subsection may not be construed to limit a
disclosure permitted by Subsection (c), (d), or (e).
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 20.02 (emphasis added). Pursuant to Texas law, the DA
cannot disclose grand jury records, if any such responsive records exist, as the exceptions
provided for in article 20.02(g) have not been met. Exhibit B, pp. 2-4. Accordingly, the
DA respectfully submits that Defendants’ Subpoena and Deposition by Written Questions
should be quashed.
B. THE SUBPOENA AND DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS SHOULD BE
QUASHED BECAUSE ANY RECORDS CONCERNING AN ON-GOING
INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED INCIDENT ARE PROTECTED FROM
DISCLOSURE UNDER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE.
The District Attorney also objects to the disclosure of any records in the
possession of the DA’s Office under the law enforcement/investigatory privilege, as
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 4
recognized by the Texas Supreme Court in Hobson v. Moore, 734 S.W.2d 340, 340-41
(Tex. 1987) (citing Houston Chronicle Pub. Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177
(Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam) 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.
1976)). As stated by the Texas Supreme Court:
The need for confidentiality in law enforcement activities is recognized in
statutory law. Section 3(a)(8) of the Texas Open Records Act, TEX. REV.
CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6252-17a, exempts from disclosure:
records of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that deal with
the detection, investigation and prosecution of crime and the
internal records and notations of such law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors which are maintained for internal use in matters relating
to law enforcement and prosecution;
We recognize this privilege in civil litigation for law enforcement
investigation.
Id. Indeed, this privilege has been codified in Section 30.006 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedy Code:
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a court in a civil action may not
order discovery from a nonparty law enforcement agency of
information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible
things if:
(1) the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or
tangible things deal with:
(A) the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime; or
(B) an investigation by the nonparty law enforcement agency that
does not result in conviction or deferred adjudication; and
(2) the release of the information, records, documents, evidentiary
materials, or tangible things would interfere with the detection,
investigation, or prosecution of criminal acts.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 5
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 30.006(c). Releasing any documents in the DA’s
possession regarding an ongoing criminal investigation into the alleged incident would
interfere with the detection, investigation and prosecution of a crime. Exhibit B, p. 4.
Accordingly, any documents concerning an ongoing investigation being conducted by
law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office would be privileged as a matter of
law and not subject to disclosure. For these reasons, the DA respectfully requests that
this Court quash the Subpoena and Deposition by Written Questions.
C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE DA OBJECTS TO PRODUCTION OF ANY
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND REQUESTS A MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER.
In the alternative, the DA objects to disclosure of any attorney work product
pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5. Such work product consists of any material prepared,
or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by an attorney.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5(a). In the case of In Re Bexar County Crim. Dist. Attorney’s Office,
224 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. 2007), the Texas Supreme Court applied attorney work product
privilege to both the employees and records of the District Attorney’s Office concluding:
In the pending case, all of the DA’s Office’s work in connection with the
criminal proceeding against Crudup, and relevant to the decision to bring
criminal charges against him, constitutes work product, namely “material
prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for
trial” or communications “made in anticipation of litigation or for trial . . .
among a party’s representatives” under Rule 192.5(a).
Id. at 187 (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5(a)). Core attorney work product, defined as “the
attorney’s or the attorney’s representative’s mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or
legal theories”, is “inviolate and flatly not discoverable.” Id.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 6
Additionally, even if this Court concludes that any such records concern every-
day, non-core attorney work product, Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of proving: (1)
“substantial need” for the testimony and (2) that she “is unable without undue hardship to
obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means.” TEX. R. CIV, P.
192.5(b)(2). For these reasons, the DA respectfully requests that this Court grant a
motion for protective order excusing her from producing attorney work product, should
such exist.
V.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Movant District Attorney Susan
Hawk respectfully requests that the Court enter a Motion to Quash the attached Subpoena
and Notice of Deposition on Written Question, or in the alternative, enter a protective
order excusing her from producing any attorney work product. The District Attorney also
requests that this Court grant any other relief to which she may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
SUSAN HAWK
CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
/s Tammy Ardolf
TAMMY ARDOLF
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TEXAS BAR NO. 90001536
CIVIL DIVISION
411 ELM STREET, FIFTH FLOOR
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202
Tammy.Ardolf@dallascounty.org
PHONE: (214) 653-6704
FAX: (214) 653-6134
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 7
ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21, I certify that a true and correct copy of the above
and foregoing document was sent to the foregoing parties and/or counsel of record via
certified mail, return receipt requested, facsimile, regular mail, email, hand delivery, or
by any other methods permitted by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a.
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED #7015 1520 0003 4943 4334
AND FAX
S. Todd Parks
Walter, Balido & Crain, L.L.P.
10440 North Central Expressway, 15th FL.
Dallas, TX 75231
Fax: (214) 760-1670
VIA FAX:
Robert Hammer
Hammer & Associates
300 Legacy Downs Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76126
Fax: (817) 332-8708
John D. Sloan, Jr.,
Sloan Matney, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75219
Fax: (214) 237-5474
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL:
William H. Kincaid
Kincaid Legal
P.O. Box 457
Sanger, TX 76266
Dated: March 30, 2016 /s/ Tammy Ardolf
Tammy Ardolf
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH,
AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 8
Preview
CAUSE NO. -15-07174 JOHN DOE I, individually and as next IN THE 44 JUDICIAL friend of JOHN DOE II, a minor, Plaintiff(s), DISTRICT COURT THE ANDERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL, WILLIAMS c. ANDERSON, individually, LEVONNA C. ANDERSON, individually, ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON, individually, RIPLEY DALLS COUNTY, TEXAS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC. Defendants. DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA AND DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk (“the DA”) to file her Objections to Subpoena and Deposition by Written Questions, Motion to Quash, and for Protective Order in the above styled and numbered cause. In support thereof, would show the Court the following: BACKGROUND The DA, a nonparty to the instant litigation, was served with a Deposition Subpoena to Testify or Produce Documents or Things and Notice to take Deposition by Written Question on or about March 16, 2016. A. Defendants Ripley’s ISTRICT TTORNEY USAN AWK S BJECTIONS TO RIAL UBPOENA OTION TO UASH, OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AUSE -07174 Page 1 Entertainment, Inc. and Jim Pattison USA, Inc. request production of any and all records pertaining to: The incident that occurred at the Ripley’s Believe [sic] or Not in Grand Prairie, Texas on October 31, 2014 involving John Doe, II, a minor, and Alexander Allen Anderson; DOB: 11/14/1986. Exhibit A, p. 2. As stated in the attached sworn affidavit executed by Assistant District Attorney Rachel Burris, Alexander Allen Anderson has not been indicted or otherwise charged as a result of the alleged incident, which is the subject of the subpoena. Exhibit B, p. 2. Responsive records, if any, would be contained in the DA’s Office’s Grand Jury File. Such grand jury files, if any, are confidential by law and cannot be disclosed. Exhibit B, p. 2. Moreover, records concerning an ongoing criminal investigation into the alleged incident are also privileged law enforcement records as release of such documents would interfere with the detection, investigation, and prosecution of a crime. Exhibit B, p. 4. In the alternative, any attorney work product in the possession of the DA also is not discoverable. II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A. THE SUBPOENA AND DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THE DA DOES NOT HAVE A PROSECUTION FILE ON THE REQUESTED INDIVIDUAL AND GRAND JURY RECORDS, IF ANY, CANNOT BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO TEXAS LAW. As stated by Assistant District Attorney Burris, the DA does not possess any prosecution files regarding the requested individual. Exhibit B, p. 2. Article 20.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the strict confidentiality of grand jury DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 2 records and proceedings and sets forth criminal and monetary penalties for the release of such records: Art. 20.02. Proceedings Secret. (a) The proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret. (b) A grand juror, bailiff, interpreter, stenographer or person operating an electronic recording device, person preparing a typewritten transcription of a stenographic or electronic recording, or person operating a video teleconferencing system for use under Article 20.151 who discloses anything transpiring before the grand jury, regardless of whether the thing transpiring is recorded, in the course of the official duties of the grand jury, is liable to a fine as for contempt of the court, not exceeding $500, imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both the fine and imprisonment. (c) A disclosure of a record made under Article 20.012, a disclosure of a typewritten transcription of that record, or a disclosure otherwise prohibited by Subsection (b) or Article 20.16 may be made by the attorney representing the state in performing the attorney’s duties to a grand juror serving on the grand jury before whom the record was made, another grand jury, a law enforcement agency, or a prosecuting attorney, as permitted by the attorney representing the state and determined by the attorney as necessary to assist the attorney in the performance of the attorney’s duties. The attorney representing the state shall warn any person the attorney authorizes to receive information under this subsection of the person’s duty to maintain the secrecy of the information. Any person who receives information under this subsection and discloses the information for purposes other than those permitted by this subsection is subject to punishment for contempt in the same manner as persons who violate Subsection (b). (d) The defendant may petition a court to order the disclosure of information otherwise made secret by this article or the disclosure of a recording or typewritten transcription under Article 20.012 as a matter preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. The court may order disclosure of the information, recording, or transcription on a showing by the defendant of a particularized need. DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 3 (e) A petition for disclosure under Subsection (d) must be filed in the district court in which the case is pending. The defendant must also file a copy of the petition with the attorney representing the state, the parties to the judicial proceeding, and any other persons required by the court to receive a copy of the petition. All persons receiving a petition under this subsection are entitled to appear before the court. The court shall provide interested parties with an opportunity to appear and present arguments for the continuation of or end to the requirement of secrecy. (f) A person who receives information under Subsection (d) or (e) and discloses that information is subject to punishment for contempt in the same manner as a person who violates Subsection (b). (g) The attorney representing the state may not disclose anything transpiring before the grand jury except as permitted by Subsections (c), (d), and (e). (h) A subpoena or summons relating to a grand jury proceeding or investigation must be kept secret to the extent and for as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter before the grand jury. This subsection may not be construed to limit a disclosure permitted by Subsection (c), (d), or (e). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 20.02 (emphasis added). Pursuant to Texas law, the DA cannot disclose grand jury records, if any such responsive records exist, as the exceptions provided for in article 20.02(g) have not been met. Exhibit B, pp. 2-4. Accordingly, the DA respectfully submits that Defendants’ Subpoena and Deposition by Written Questions should be quashed. B. THE SUBPOENA AND DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE ANY RECORDS CONCERNING AN ON-GOING INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED INCIDENT ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE. The District Attorney also objects to the disclosure of any records in the possession of the DA’s Office under the law enforcement/investigatory privilege, as DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 4 recognized by the Texas Supreme Court in Hobson v. Moore, 734 S.W.2d 340, 340-41 (Tex. 1987) (citing Houston Chronicle Pub. Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam) 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976)). As stated by the Texas Supreme Court: The need for confidentiality in law enforcement activities is recognized in statutory law. Section 3(a)(8) of the Texas Open Records Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6252-17a, exempts from disclosure: records of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that deal with the detection, investigation and prosecution of crime and the internal records and notations of such law enforcement agencies and prosecutors which are maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement and prosecution; We recognize this privilege in civil litigation for law enforcement investigation. Id. Indeed, this privilege has been codified in Section 30.006 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code: (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a court in a civil action may not order discovery from a nonparty law enforcement agency of information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible things if: (1) the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or tangible things deal with: (A) the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime; or (B) an investigation by the nonparty law enforcement agency that does not result in conviction or deferred adjudication; and (2) the release of the information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, or tangible things would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of criminal acts. DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 5 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 30.006(c). Releasing any documents in the DA’s possession regarding an ongoing criminal investigation into the alleged incident would interfere with the detection, investigation and prosecution of a crime. Exhibit B, p. 4. Accordingly, any documents concerning an ongoing investigation being conducted by law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office would be privileged as a matter of law and not subject to disclosure. For these reasons, the DA respectfully requests that this Court quash the Subpoena and Deposition by Written Questions. C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE DA OBJECTS TO PRODUCTION OF ANY ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND REQUESTS A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. In the alternative, the DA objects to disclosure of any attorney work product pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.5. Such work product consists of any material prepared, or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by an attorney. TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5(a). In the case of In Re Bexar County Crim. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 224 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. 2007), the Texas Supreme Court applied attorney work product privilege to both the employees and records of the District Attorney’s Office concluding: In the pending case, all of the DA’s Office’s work in connection with the criminal proceeding against Crudup, and relevant to the decision to bring criminal charges against him, constitutes work product, namely “material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial” or communications “made in anticipation of litigation or for trial . . . among a party’s representatives” under Rule 192.5(a). Id. at 187 (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.5(a)). Core attorney work product, defined as “the attorney’s or the attorney’s representative’s mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories”, is “inviolate and flatly not discoverable.” Id. DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 6 Additionally, even if this Court concludes that any such records concern every- day, non-core attorney work product, Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of proving: (1) “substantial need” for the testimony and (2) that she “is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means.” TEX. R. CIV, P. 192.5(b)(2). For these reasons, the DA respectfully requests that this Court grant a motion for protective order excusing her from producing attorney work product, should such exist. V. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Movant District Attorney Susan Hawk respectfully requests that the Court enter a Motion to Quash the attached Subpoena and Notice of Deposition on Written Question, or in the alternative, enter a protective order excusing her from producing any attorney work product. The District Attorney also requests that this Court grant any other relief to which she may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, SUSAN HAWK CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS /s Tammy Ardolf TAMMY ARDOLF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY TEXAS BAR NO. 90001536 CIVIL DIVISION 411 ELM STREET, FIFTH FLOOR DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 Tammy.Ardolf@dallascounty.org PHONE: (214) 653-6704 FAX: (214) 653-6134 DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 7 ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21, I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was sent to the foregoing parties and/or counsel of record via certified mail, return receipt requested, facsimile, regular mail, email, hand delivery, or by any other methods permitted by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED #7015 1520 0003 4943 4334 AND FAX S. Todd Parks Walter, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. 10440 North Central Expressway, 15th FL. Dallas, TX 75231 Fax: (214) 760-1670 VIA FAX: Robert Hammer Hammer & Associates 300 Legacy Downs Drive Fort Worth, TX 76126 Fax: (817) 332-8708 John D. Sloan, Jr., Sloan Matney, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75219 Fax: (214) 237-5474 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL: William H. Kincaid Kincaid Legal P.O. Box 457 Sanger, TX 76266 Dated: March 30, 2016 /s/ Tammy Ardolf Tammy Ardolf DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL SUBPOENA, MOTION TO QUASH, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – CAUSE NO. DC-15-07174 Page 8