Preview
Cause No. DC-15-07174
John Doe I, Individually and In the District Court
as Next Friend of John Doe II,
a Minor,
Plaintiffs
The Anderson Private School, Dallas County, Texas
William C. Anderson,
Individually, LeVonna
Anderson, Individually,
Alexander A. Anderson,
Individually, Ripley
Entertainment, Inc., and Jim
Pattison U.S.A., Inc.,
Defendants. 44th Judicial District
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel
To the Honorable Judge of said Court:
Pursuant to Rules 193.4 and 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
Alexander Anderson moves that this Court (a) overrule Plaintiff John Doe I’s objection
to various discovery requests outlined herein regarding Plaintiffs’ medical/counseling
and billing records, and compel Plaintiff to respond to the requests without obje
tion. In support of this Motion, Anderson would show the Court as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Claims
Plaintiffs allege that on October 31, 2014, Defendant Alexander Anderson sexually
assaulted John Doe I’s minor son John Doe II at Ripley’s Believe It or Not in Grand Pra
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 1
rie while on a school field trip. See generally, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition. Plain-
tiffs allege in this suit that Anderson took advantage of John Doe II, who has autism.
Plaintiffs sued Alexander Anderson for assault and battery, infliction of emotional dis-
tress on John Doe II, negligence, negligence per se, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for medical and/or counseling expenses, physical
pain and suffering, and mental anguish and accompanying physical manifestations, all
past and future.
II. Discovery Served on Plaintiff John Doe I
On October 26, 2015, Alexander Anderson served written discovery to Plaintiff John
Doe I. On November 25, 2015, John Doe I responded to this discovery. John Doe I sup-
plemented his responses and objections on December 7, 2015. See, Exhibit A attached
hereto, a true and correct copy of John Doe I’s First Supplemental Answers, Responses
and Objections to Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Set of Interrogatories, First
Request for Production and First Requests for Admissions. John Doe I failed to ade-
quately respond to written requests in this discovery for John Doe II’s medical and
counseling records, the identities of the John Doe II’s healthcare providers and counse-
lors, and information related to John Doe II’s autism diagnosis.
On September 7, 2016, Alexander Anderson served additional written discovery to
John Doe I, who responded on October 6, 2016. See, Exhibit B attached hereto, a true and
correct copy of John Doe I’s Responses and Objections to Defendant Alexander Ander-
son’s Second Request for Production. Again, Plaintiffs failed to produce any additional
documentation in response to the targeted requests for medical and billing information
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 2
about the Plaintiffs.
In addition, Alexander Anderson has served Rule 194.2 Requests for Disclosure on
John Doe I. In response to the requests for disclosures, John Doe I has never provided a
written authorization to obtain medical or billing records or complete copies of relevant
medical records and bills. See, John Doe I’s Fourth Amended Response to All Defend-
ants’ Requests for Disclosure, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex-
hibit C.
III. Argument and Authorities
A. John Doe I failed to fully respond to Alexander Anderson’s interrogatories re-
questing information relating to John Doe II’s medical treatment and counsel-
ing.
At issue are John Doe I’s most recent objections and/or answers to Interrogatory
Nos. 1, 10, and 16 of Alexander Anderson’s First Set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory
Nos. 1 and 16 seek the identities of John Doe II’s physicians and counselors and Inter-
rogatory No. 10 seeks information about any medical tests confirming that John Doe II
was sexually assaulted. John Doe I has objected to each and every one of the foregoing
interrogatories and limited his answer to Interrogatory No. 16 to a three year period of
time.
In this case, Plaintiffs have put John Doe II’s autism diagnosis at issue by designat-
ing experts to offer opinions about John Doe II’s autism, including the severity John Doe
II’s autism, its impact on John Doe II’s communication and interaction with people, and
its effect on the statements made by John Doe II after the alleged incident. Moreover,
Plaintiffs have alleged that Alexander Anderson took advantage of John Doe II’s autism
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 3
disability. Because John Doe II’s autism is at issue, the identities of any physician or
counselor who has diagnosed John Doe II as autistic or otherwise provided services re-
lated to John Doe II’s autism are unquestionably relevant and discoverable.
John Doe II’s past and future physical and mental health are at issue in this suit be-
cause Plaintiffs seek damages for medical and/or counseling expenses, physical pain
and suffering, and mental anguish and accompanying physical manifestations, all past
and future. John Doe II’s physicians and counselors may have knowledge about John
Doe II’s physical and mental health conditions, both before and after the alleged assault.
The identities of any such physician or counselor are relevant and discoverable given
John Doe II’s damage claims.
In addition, the information sought in Interrogatory No. 10 is discoverable because a
critical issue in this case is whether Plaintiffs can prove their unsubstantiated allegation
that John Doe II was sexually assaulted by Alexander Anderson. Thus, information
about any medical tests confirming that allegation is clearly relevant.
Because the information in these written discovery requests are relevant and discov-
erable, Alexander Anderson respectfully moves that this Court overrule John Doe I’s
objections and enter an Order compelling John Doe I to fully respond to Alexander An-
derson’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10, and 16 within the next fifteen (15) days.
B. John Doe I failed to fully respond to Alexander Anderson’s requests for pro-
duction of documents and request for disclosure seeking medical and counsel-
ing records and medical authorizations.
At issue are John Doe I’s most recent responses and/or objections to Request for
Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Alexander Anderson’s Second Request for Produc-
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 4
tion, which seek medical records, counseling records, medical authorizations, and doc-
uments reflecting medical expenses from Plaintiffs, as well as the Rule 194.2(j) Requests
for Disclosures served on Plaintiffs.
As stated above, Plaintiffs have put their past and future medical conditions at issue
by alleging that Alexander Anderson took advantage of John Doe II’s autism disability
and by designating experts to offer opinions about the interplay between John Doe II’s
autism and the allegations upon which this lawsuit is based. Moreover, and as stated
above, Plaintiffs have put their past and future medical conditions at issue by seeking
damages for medical and/or counseling expenses, physical pain and suffering, and
mental anguish and accompanying physical manifestations, all past and future.
To date, Plaintiffs have produced only 21 pages of medical records from Cook’s
Children, and Plaintiffs have almost completely redacted counseling notes from their
testifying expert Charlotte Ice Sammons, which notes post-date the alleged assault.
Plaintiffs have not produced any medical or counseling records associated with the
treatment of John Doe I, and they have not produced authorizations which would allow
Alexander Anderson’s attorneys to obtain Plaintiffs’ medical records and medical bill-
ing records. The above requests for production and Rule 194.2(j) both require the pro-
duction of these records, or the execution of an authorization to obtain same. In re-
sponse to the Second Set of Requests for Production, Plaintiffs responded by acknowl-
edging their requirement to produce these records or documents without objection un-
der Rule 194.2, but they nevertheless produced no records or documents, thus necessi-
tating the filing of this Motion.
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 5
Alexander Anderson respectfully moves that this Court overrule John Doe I’s objec-
tions and enter an Order compelling John Doe I to fully respond to Request for Produc-
tion Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Alexander Anderson’s Second Request for Production
within the next fifteen (15) days. In addition, Alexander Anderson respectfully requests
that the Court compel John Doe I to fully respond to Alexander Anderson’s Rule 194.2(j)
Request for Disclosure within the next fifteen (15) days.
IV. Conclusion
John Doe II’s autism and past and future physical and mental health are at issue in
this lawsuit, especially given the opinions of Plaintiffs’ testifying experts and their fact
and damage allegations against Alexander Anderson. Accordingly, the identities of any
physician or counselor who has treated or counseled John Doe II in connection with his
autism and physical and mental health are relevant and discoverable. Therefore, John
Doe I’s objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10, and 16 should be overruled and John Doe
I should be compelled to fully answer those interrogatories.
Likewise, Plaintiffs’ objections to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
should be overruled. Plaintiffs’ medical records and bills are relevant to their damage
claims against Alexander Anderson, and therefore, they should be compelled to fully
respond to the above requests for production as well as Alexander Anderson’s Rule
194.2(j) Request for Disclosure.
Defendant Alexander Anderson respectfully requests that the Court set this Motion
for hearing, and upon hearing, compel Plaintiff John Doe I to fully and completely re-
spond, without objection, to the above-referenced Interrogatories, Requests for Produc-
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 6
tion, and Request for Disclosure within the next fifteen (15) days, and to produce exe-
cuted authorizations to allow Alexander Anderson to obtain documents relevant to
Plaintiffs’ medical history. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs have an obligation to pro-
duce these relevant and discoverable documents without objection, Anderson seeks all
remedies allowed under Rule 215, and for such further relief to which Alexander An-
derson may show himself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
TOUCHSTONE, BERNAYS, JOHNSTON,
BEALL, SMITH & STOLLENWERCK, L.L.P.
4040 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
(214) 741-1166
(214) 259-8720 (fax)
By: /s/ Rocky Feemster
Rocky Feemster
State Bar No. 06873350
Rocky.Feemster@tbjbs.com
Trey D. Kampfer
State Bar No. 24078766
Trey.Kampfer@tbjbs.com
Counsel for Defendants
Alexander A. Anderson
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 7
Certificate of Conference
The undersigned certifies that he corresponded with Plaintiffs’ attorney regarding
the merits of this Motion on October 7, 2016 and that the parties could not reach an
agreement with respect to same. Therefore, a hearing on the merits of this Motion will
be necessary.
/s/ Rocky Feemster
Rocky Feemster
Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies that on October 14, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served on all known counsel of record in accordance with the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
/s/ Trey Kampfer
Rocky Feemster
Trey D. Kampfer
Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 8
Exhibit A
I, Individually
and as Next Friend of J II, a
Plaintiffs,
v.
RIVATE
NDERSON
NDIVIDUALLY LEXANDER
UDICIAL
NTERTAINMENT
EXAS
PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE I’s FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS, RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES, FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUESTS
: Defendant Alexander A. Anderson by and through his counsel Robert W. Hammer,
300 Legacy Downs Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76126, robert@rhammerlaw.com
Plaintiff John Doe I (“Plaintiff”) serves
and objections pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196, 197 and 198.
and Objections to Defendant’s Discovery Page 1
Plaintiff objects to the Instructions and Definitions in Defendant’s discovery as
beyond the permissible
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Each of these General Objections is
incorporated into the Answers and Responses bel
OHN LOAN
SLOAN MATNEY, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave.
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
dlukasik@sloanmatney.com
and Objections to Defendant’s Discovery Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 7th day of December, 2015 a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document has been served via email on:
Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P.
10440 North Central Expressway
Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500
todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com
ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com
Fort Worth, Texas 76126
robert@rhammerlaw.com
John D. Sloan, Jr.
and Objections to Defendant’s Discovery Page 3
Interrogatory No. 1: Provide the name, address, telephone number, qualifications, job
description and period of contact, employment or service, of all persons providing care,
supervision, teaching, counseling or assistance of John Doe II.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for
the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek
information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff
further objects that the Interrogatory is vague and confusing. Plaintiff further asserts the
nt to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
3717 West 7th Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
counseling to John Doe
Amanda Bell
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Ms. Bell provided counseling to John Doe II before and after the sexual assault.
Sarah Mountjoy, LPC
3200 Sanguinet Street
Fort Worth , TX 76107
Ms. Mountjoy has provided counseling to John Doe II after
Request for Production No. 1: Produce any documents arising from any search,
investigation or background check into the persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1.
t’s Discovery Page 16
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information
that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third
parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts
ivilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
Request for Admission 1: Admit or deny that you did not conduct or request a
search, investigation or background check into all of the persons identified in Interrogatory
ound, so any response would be misleading.
Request for Production No. 2: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship
between you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding her care, supervision,
teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not
limited to, Ms. Sammons application, resume, employment contract, job description,
service proposals and care plans, and accounting records regarding compensation for Ms.
Ice/Sammons services.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information
that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third
parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts
ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Ice
may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of
relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession,
custody or control that relate to Ms. Ice in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such
documents in accordance with duling Order in this matter.
Request for Production No. 3: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship
between you and Amanda Bell regarding her care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or
t’s Discovery Page 17
assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms. Bell's application,
resume, employment contract, job description, service proposals and care plans, and
accounting records regarding compensation for Ms. Bell's services.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information
that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third
parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts
ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Bell
may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of
relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession,
custody or control that relate to Ms. Bell in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such
documents in accordance with duling Order in this matter.
Request for Production No. 4: Produce any documents evidencing communications
between you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding the care, supervision,
teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information
that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third
parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts
ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Ice
may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of
relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession,
custody or control that relate to Ms. Ice in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such
documents in accordance with duling Order in this matter.
t’s Discovery Page 18
Request for Production No. 5: Produce any documents evidencing communications
between you and Amanda Bell regarding the care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or
assistance of John Doe II.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information
that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third
parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts
ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Bell
may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of
relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession,
custody or control that relate to Ms. Bell in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such
documents in accordance with ling Order in this matter.
Interrogatory No. 2: Provide the name, address, telephone number of any persons, except
your attorneys, with whom you have discussed your allegations that Alexander A.
Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of each
communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for
the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek
information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff incorporates his
response to Request for Disclosure 194.2(e) as if fully set forth herein.
swers as follows:
unsel for Andersons via telephone)
c/o Sloan Matney, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75219
t’s Discovery Page 19
I told my mom about the sexual assault the day at happened. I have
spoken with her on multiple occasions about what happened.
3717 West 7th Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
I called Ms. Ice immediately after my son told me what happened at Ripley’s Believe it or
Not. I have had many conversations with her about the sexual assault on my son.
Grand Prairie Police Department
Det. B. Makovy
Officer R. Fincher
1525 Arkansas Lane
Grand Prairie, Texas 75052
Telephone: (
I spoke to the Grand Prairie Police Department about the sexual assault on a number of
occasions.
Linda Delamare
Address and telephone number unknown
Soon after my son was sexually assaulted, Ms. Delamare called me on the phone regarding
her grandson’s jacket. During that call I told her my understanding of what had happened.
Later, Ms. Delamare came to my house to pick up the jacket and we discussed the fact that
Alex Anderson sexually assaulted my son.
Brian Youngblood
Address unknown
Soon after my son was sexually assaulted, I called Mr. Youngblood to let him know my
Address unknown
t’s Discovery Page 20
I called Mr. and Mrs. Cespedes during the investigation by th
Brian Gann (this is the name Defendants’ counsel provided)
Address and telephone number unknown.
After my son was assaulted, I was driving by the school and by chance saw Alexander
Anderson from the road. I blew the horn on my truck furiously at him and (presumably) Mr.
Gann walked toward my truck on the other side of the fence, and engaged me and I told Mr.
Trevor North (this is the name Defendants’ counsel provided)
Address and telephone number unknown.
I was at the pet store near my house and saw Mr. North was working there. I told him
Alexander Anderson sexually assaulted my son on the field trip to
Tarrant County District Attorney
I called Ms. Martinez soon after my son was sexually assaulted to discuss moving forward
with a criminal case against Alexander Anderson.
I called Mr. Helmer soon after my son was sexually assaulted to get advice on bringing
t Alexander Anderson.
Theresa Fugate
Fort Worth, Texas 76104
t’s Discovery Page 21
In January 2015 I spoke to the medical staff at Cook Children’s hospital about the sexual
5351 Samuell Blvd, Dallas, TX 75228
I spoke to a counselor at DCAC in January 2015 about the sexual assault.
908 Southland Ave
I spoke to a couple of counselors at Alliance for Children about the sexual assault of my son
in late 2014.
Request for Production No. 6: Produce any communications between you and any
other person, except your attorney that address your allegation that Alexander A.
Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information
that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
attorney/client and in
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any
responsive documents in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this
discovery should he receive or
Request for Admission 2: Admit or deny that you have not had any communication with
John Doe II's birth mother about your allegation that Alexander Anderson sexually abused
John Doe II.
Interrogatory No. 3: If you denied Request for Admission 2, provide the date and time of
t’s Discovery Page 22
each communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for
the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further asserts the physician/patient privilege pursuant
to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510.
Request for Admission 3: Admit or deny that John Doe II'sbirth mother is not a party to
this lawsuit.
Request for Admission 4: Admit or deny that you told the parents of other students
at the Anderson School that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.
Admit.
Interrogatory No. 4: If you admitted request for admission 4, provide the name,
address, telephone number of each parent that you told Alexander A. Anderson sexually
abused John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of each communication.
See Answer to Interrogatory number 2 above.
Request for Production No. 7: Produce any documents that support your allegation
that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this is simply a fishing expedition as
Loftin v. Martin. Plaintiff will produce all documents that are relevant and
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence through the course of discovery.
Request for Admission 5: Admit or deny that you did not witness Alexander A. Anderson
have sexual contact with John Doe II on October 31, 2014.
t’s Discovery Page 23
Request for Admission 6: Admit or deny that you have never witnessed Alexander
A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II.
Interrogatory No. 5: Provide the name, address and telephone number of anyone who
has witnessed Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II.Also, provide
the date and time of the incident.
Plaintiff is not currently aware of any such person. However, discovery is at the earliest
stages, and the Anderson Defendants have done everything possible to avoid and evade
providing any information as to who was at the fieldtrip, or who the past and present
parents and students are at the school. Plaintiff will supplement this Interrogatory as more
Interrogatory No. 6: Provide the name, address and school principal of each school John
Doe II has ever attended.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for
the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek
information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, my son went to McCall
Elementary School from kindergarten through fourth grade. The address is 400 Scenic Trail,
Willow Park , Texas 76087. The phone number
Interrogatory No. 7: Explain why John Doe II is no longer at each of the schools
identified in answer to interrogatory number 6.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for
the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek
information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
t’s Discovery Page 24
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, the school district changed
the way some of the schools were configured, so fifth and sixth grades would be in the same
school. This meant there would have been approximately 2,000 kids in one school, which
was a bigger school than I wanted my son to attend. It was at this time that we found The
Anderson Private School.
Request for Admission 7: Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II on the
Ripley's Believe it or Not field trip on October 31, 2014.
Admit.
Request for Admission 8: Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II into each
exhibit at Ripley's Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014.
Interrogatory No. 8: If you denied request for admission 8, please explain why you did
not accompany John Doe II into each exhibit on October 31, 2014.
My son got out of my sight for a very short period of time, and Alexander Anderson took
Request for Admission 9: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not was open to the
general public on October 31, 2014.
Request for Admission 10: Admit or deny that Other Patrons were at Ripley's Believe it or
Not on October 31, 2014. "Other patrons" is defined as persons other than the
Anderson Private School students, parents, teachers and chaperons.
t’s Discovery Page 25
Request for Admission 11: Admit or deny that employees and personnel of Ripley's
Believe it or Not were present on October 31, 2014.
Request for Admission 12: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not had security
cameras on October 31, 2014.
Request for Production No. 8: Produce any text messages sent or received by you
regarding your allegation that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.This
request excludes text messages to or from your attorneys.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any
responsive documents, beyond those that the Anderson Defendants already produced, in his
possession, custody and control, but will supplement this discovery should he receive or
obtain any such documents.
Request for Production No. 9: Produce any visual images evidencing Alexander
Anderson's sexual contact with John Doe II.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any
responsive documents in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this
discovery should he receive or
Request for Production No. 10: Produce any communications from anyone, except your
attorneys, alleging that Alex Anderson ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II.For
the purposes of this request, there is no time limit.
t’s Discovery Page 26
Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the
purpose of harassment.
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any
responsive documents in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this
discovery should he receive or
Request for Production No. 11: Produce any documents evidencing that any of the
Defendants ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request,
there is no time l
Preview
Cause No. DC-15-07174 John Doe I, Individually and In the District Court as Next Friend of John Doe II, a Minor, Plaintiffs The Anderson Private School, Dallas County, Texas William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna Anderson, Individually, Alexander A. Anderson, Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., and Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc., Defendants. 44th Judicial District Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel To the Honorable Judge of said Court: Pursuant to Rules 193.4 and 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Alexander Anderson moves that this Court (a) overrule Plaintiff John Doe I’s objection to various discovery requests outlined herein regarding Plaintiffs’ medical/counseling and billing records, and compel Plaintiff to respond to the requests without obje tion. In support of this Motion, Anderson would show the Court as follows: Plaintiffs’ Claims Plaintiffs allege that on October 31, 2014, Defendant Alexander Anderson sexually assaulted John Doe I’s minor son John Doe II at Ripley’s Believe It or Not in Grand Pra Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 1 rie while on a school field trip. See generally, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition. Plain- tiffs allege in this suit that Anderson took advantage of John Doe II, who has autism. Plaintiffs sued Alexander Anderson for assault and battery, infliction of emotional dis- tress on John Doe II, negligence, negligence per se, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for medical and/or counseling expenses, physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish and accompanying physical manifestations, all past and future. II. Discovery Served on Plaintiff John Doe I On October 26, 2015, Alexander Anderson served written discovery to Plaintiff John Doe I. On November 25, 2015, John Doe I responded to this discovery. John Doe I sup- plemented his responses and objections on December 7, 2015. See, Exhibit A attached hereto, a true and correct copy of John Doe I’s First Supplemental Answers, Responses and Objections to Defendant Alexander A. Anderson’s First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Requests for Admissions. John Doe I failed to ade- quately respond to written requests in this discovery for John Doe II’s medical and counseling records, the identities of the John Doe II’s healthcare providers and counse- lors, and information related to John Doe II’s autism diagnosis. On September 7, 2016, Alexander Anderson served additional written discovery to John Doe I, who responded on October 6, 2016. See, Exhibit B attached hereto, a true and correct copy of John Doe I’s Responses and Objections to Defendant Alexander Ander- son’s Second Request for Production. Again, Plaintiffs failed to produce any additional documentation in response to the targeted requests for medical and billing information Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 2 about the Plaintiffs. In addition, Alexander Anderson has served Rule 194.2 Requests for Disclosure on John Doe I. In response to the requests for disclosures, John Doe I has never provided a written authorization to obtain medical or billing records or complete copies of relevant medical records and bills. See, John Doe I’s Fourth Amended Response to All Defend- ants’ Requests for Disclosure, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex- hibit C. III. Argument and Authorities A. John Doe I failed to fully respond to Alexander Anderson’s interrogatories re- questing information relating to John Doe II’s medical treatment and counsel- ing. At issue are John Doe I’s most recent objections and/or answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10, and 16 of Alexander Anderson’s First Set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 16 seek the identities of John Doe II’s physicians and counselors and Inter- rogatory No. 10 seeks information about any medical tests confirming that John Doe II was sexually assaulted. John Doe I has objected to each and every one of the foregoing interrogatories and limited his answer to Interrogatory No. 16 to a three year period of time. In this case, Plaintiffs have put John Doe II’s autism diagnosis at issue by designat- ing experts to offer opinions about John Doe II’s autism, including the severity John Doe II’s autism, its impact on John Doe II’s communication and interaction with people, and its effect on the statements made by John Doe II after the alleged incident. Moreover, Plaintiffs have alleged that Alexander Anderson took advantage of John Doe II’s autism Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 3 disability. Because John Doe II’s autism is at issue, the identities of any physician or counselor who has diagnosed John Doe II as autistic or otherwise provided services re- lated to John Doe II’s autism are unquestionably relevant and discoverable. John Doe II’s past and future physical and mental health are at issue in this suit be- cause Plaintiffs seek damages for medical and/or counseling expenses, physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish and accompanying physical manifestations, all past and future. John Doe II’s physicians and counselors may have knowledge about John Doe II’s physical and mental health conditions, both before and after the alleged assault. The identities of any such physician or counselor are relevant and discoverable given John Doe II’s damage claims. In addition, the information sought in Interrogatory No. 10 is discoverable because a critical issue in this case is whether Plaintiffs can prove their unsubstantiated allegation that John Doe II was sexually assaulted by Alexander Anderson. Thus, information about any medical tests confirming that allegation is clearly relevant. Because the information in these written discovery requests are relevant and discov- erable, Alexander Anderson respectfully moves that this Court overrule John Doe I’s objections and enter an Order compelling John Doe I to fully respond to Alexander An- derson’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10, and 16 within the next fifteen (15) days. B. John Doe I failed to fully respond to Alexander Anderson’s requests for pro- duction of documents and request for disclosure seeking medical and counsel- ing records and medical authorizations. At issue are John Doe I’s most recent responses and/or objections to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Alexander Anderson’s Second Request for Produc- Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 4 tion, which seek medical records, counseling records, medical authorizations, and doc- uments reflecting medical expenses from Plaintiffs, as well as the Rule 194.2(j) Requests for Disclosures served on Plaintiffs. As stated above, Plaintiffs have put their past and future medical conditions at issue by alleging that Alexander Anderson took advantage of John Doe II’s autism disability and by designating experts to offer opinions about the interplay between John Doe II’s autism and the allegations upon which this lawsuit is based. Moreover, and as stated above, Plaintiffs have put their past and future medical conditions at issue by seeking damages for medical and/or counseling expenses, physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish and accompanying physical manifestations, all past and future. To date, Plaintiffs have produced only 21 pages of medical records from Cook’s Children, and Plaintiffs have almost completely redacted counseling notes from their testifying expert Charlotte Ice Sammons, which notes post-date the alleged assault. Plaintiffs have not produced any medical or counseling records associated with the treatment of John Doe I, and they have not produced authorizations which would allow Alexander Anderson’s attorneys to obtain Plaintiffs’ medical records and medical bill- ing records. The above requests for production and Rule 194.2(j) both require the pro- duction of these records, or the execution of an authorization to obtain same. In re- sponse to the Second Set of Requests for Production, Plaintiffs responded by acknowl- edging their requirement to produce these records or documents without objection un- der Rule 194.2, but they nevertheless produced no records or documents, thus necessi- tating the filing of this Motion. Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 5 Alexander Anderson respectfully moves that this Court overrule John Doe I’s objec- tions and enter an Order compelling John Doe I to fully respond to Request for Produc- tion Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Alexander Anderson’s Second Request for Production within the next fifteen (15) days. In addition, Alexander Anderson respectfully requests that the Court compel John Doe I to fully respond to Alexander Anderson’s Rule 194.2(j) Request for Disclosure within the next fifteen (15) days. IV. Conclusion John Doe II’s autism and past and future physical and mental health are at issue in this lawsuit, especially given the opinions of Plaintiffs’ testifying experts and their fact and damage allegations against Alexander Anderson. Accordingly, the identities of any physician or counselor who has treated or counseled John Doe II in connection with his autism and physical and mental health are relevant and discoverable. Therefore, John Doe I’s objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10, and 16 should be overruled and John Doe I should be compelled to fully answer those interrogatories. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ objections to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 should be overruled. Plaintiffs’ medical records and bills are relevant to their damage claims against Alexander Anderson, and therefore, they should be compelled to fully respond to the above requests for production as well as Alexander Anderson’s Rule 194.2(j) Request for Disclosure. Defendant Alexander Anderson respectfully requests that the Court set this Motion for hearing, and upon hearing, compel Plaintiff John Doe I to fully and completely re- spond, without objection, to the above-referenced Interrogatories, Requests for Produc- Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 6 tion, and Request for Disclosure within the next fifteen (15) days, and to produce exe- cuted authorizations to allow Alexander Anderson to obtain documents relevant to Plaintiffs’ medical history. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs have an obligation to pro- duce these relevant and discoverable documents without objection, Anderson seeks all remedies allowed under Rule 215, and for such further relief to which Alexander An- derson may show himself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, TOUCHSTONE, BERNAYS, JOHNSTON, BEALL, SMITH & STOLLENWERCK, L.L.P. 4040 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270 (214) 741-1166 (214) 259-8720 (fax) By: /s/ Rocky Feemster Rocky Feemster State Bar No. 06873350 Rocky.Feemster@tbjbs.com Trey D. Kampfer State Bar No. 24078766 Trey.Kampfer@tbjbs.com Counsel for Defendants Alexander A. Anderson Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 7 Certificate of Conference The undersigned certifies that he corresponded with Plaintiffs’ attorney regarding the merits of this Motion on October 7, 2016 and that the parties could not reach an agreement with respect to same. Therefore, a hearing on the merits of this Motion will be necessary. /s/ Rocky Feemster Rocky Feemster Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that on October 14, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all known counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ Trey Kampfer Rocky Feemster Trey D. Kampfer Defendant Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Compel Page 8 Exhibit A I, Individually and as Next Friend of J II, a Plaintiffs, v. RIVATE NDERSON NDIVIDUALLY LEXANDER UDICIAL NTERTAINMENT EXAS PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE I’s FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS, RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT ALEXANDER A. ANDERSON'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUESTS : Defendant Alexander A. Anderson by and through his counsel Robert W. Hammer, 300 Legacy Downs Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76126, robert@rhammerlaw.com Plaintiff John Doe I (“Plaintiff”) serves and objections pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196, 197 and 198. and Objections to Defendant’s Discovery Page 1 Plaintiff objects to the Instructions and Definitions in Defendant’s discovery as beyond the permissible Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Each of these General Objections is incorporated into the Answers and Responses bel OHN LOAN SLOAN MATNEY, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave. jsloan@sloanmatney.com dlukasik@sloanmatney.com and Objections to Defendant’s Discovery Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 7th day of December, 2015 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via email on: Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. 10440 North Central Expressway Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com Fort Worth, Texas 76126 robert@rhammerlaw.com John D. Sloan, Jr. and Objections to Defendant’s Discovery Page 3 Interrogatory No. 1: Provide the name, address, telephone number, qualifications, job description and period of contact, employment or service, of all persons providing care, supervision, teaching, counseling or assistance of John Doe II. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that the Interrogatory is vague and confusing. Plaintiff further asserts the nt to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. 3717 West 7th Street Fort Worth, Texas 76107 counseling to John Doe Amanda Bell Fort Worth, Texas 76107 Ms. Bell provided counseling to John Doe II before and after the sexual assault. Sarah Mountjoy, LPC 3200 Sanguinet Street Fort Worth , TX 76107 Ms. Mountjoy has provided counseling to John Doe II after Request for Production No. 1: Produce any documents arising from any search, investigation or background check into the persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1. t’s Discovery Page 16 Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts ivilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. Request for Admission 1: Admit or deny that you did not conduct or request a search, investigation or background check into all of the persons identified in Interrogatory ound, so any response would be misleading. Request for Production No. 2: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship between you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding her care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms. Sammons application, resume, employment contract, job description, service proposals and care plans, and accounting records regarding compensation for Ms. Ice/Sammons services. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Ice may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession, custody or control that relate to Ms. Ice in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such documents in accordance with duling Order in this matter. Request for Production No. 3: Produce any documents evidencing the relationship between you and Amanda Bell regarding her care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or t’s Discovery Page 17 assistance of John Doe II. This request includes, but is not limited to, Ms. Bell's application, resume, employment contract, job description, service proposals and care plans, and accounting records regarding compensation for Ms. Bell's services. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Bell may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession, custody or control that relate to Ms. Bell in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such documents in accordance with duling Order in this matter. Request for Production No. 4: Produce any documents evidencing communications between you and Charlotte Ice a/k/a Charlotte Sammons regarding the care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Ice may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession, custody or control that relate to Ms. Ice in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such documents in accordance with duling Order in this matter. t’s Discovery Page 18 Request for Production No. 5: Produce any documents evidencing communications between you and Amanda Bell regarding the care, supervision, teaching, counseling, or assistance of John Doe II. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that the Request is vague and confusing, and seeks documentation from third parties that are not under Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further asserts ilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, it is anticipated that Ms. Bell may be designated as a non-retained expert witness, as well as a person with knowledge of relevant facts in this matter. To the extent Plaintiff has any documents in his possession, custody or control that relate to Ms. Bell in this regard, Plaintiff will produce all such documents in accordance with ling Order in this matter. Interrogatory No. 2: Provide the name, address, telephone number of any persons, except your attorneys, with whom you have discussed your allegations that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of each communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff incorporates his response to Request for Disclosure 194.2(e) as if fully set forth herein. swers as follows: unsel for Andersons via telephone) c/o Sloan Matney, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75219 t’s Discovery Page 19 I told my mom about the sexual assault the day at happened. I have spoken with her on multiple occasions about what happened. 3717 West 7th Street Fort Worth, Texas 76107 I called Ms. Ice immediately after my son told me what happened at Ripley’s Believe it or Not. I have had many conversations with her about the sexual assault on my son. Grand Prairie Police Department Det. B. Makovy Officer R. Fincher 1525 Arkansas Lane Grand Prairie, Texas 75052 Telephone: ( I spoke to the Grand Prairie Police Department about the sexual assault on a number of occasions. Linda Delamare Address and telephone number unknown Soon after my son was sexually assaulted, Ms. Delamare called me on the phone regarding her grandson’s jacket. During that call I told her my understanding of what had happened. Later, Ms. Delamare came to my house to pick up the jacket and we discussed the fact that Alex Anderson sexually assaulted my son. Brian Youngblood Address unknown Soon after my son was sexually assaulted, I called Mr. Youngblood to let him know my Address unknown t’s Discovery Page 20 I called Mr. and Mrs. Cespedes during the investigation by th Brian Gann (this is the name Defendants’ counsel provided) Address and telephone number unknown. After my son was assaulted, I was driving by the school and by chance saw Alexander Anderson from the road. I blew the horn on my truck furiously at him and (presumably) Mr. Gann walked toward my truck on the other side of the fence, and engaged me and I told Mr. Trevor North (this is the name Defendants’ counsel provided) Address and telephone number unknown. I was at the pet store near my house and saw Mr. North was working there. I told him Alexander Anderson sexually assaulted my son on the field trip to Tarrant County District Attorney I called Ms. Martinez soon after my son was sexually assaulted to discuss moving forward with a criminal case against Alexander Anderson. I called Mr. Helmer soon after my son was sexually assaulted to get advice on bringing t Alexander Anderson. Theresa Fugate Fort Worth, Texas 76104 t’s Discovery Page 21 In January 2015 I spoke to the medical staff at Cook Children’s hospital about the sexual 5351 Samuell Blvd, Dallas, TX 75228 I spoke to a counselor at DCAC in January 2015 about the sexual assault. 908 Southland Ave I spoke to a couple of counselors at Alliance for Children about the sexual assault of my son in late 2014. Request for Production No. 6: Produce any communications between you and any other person, except your attorney that address your allegation that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Request fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further attorney/client and in Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any responsive documents in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this discovery should he receive or Request for Admission 2: Admit or deny that you have not had any communication with John Doe II's birth mother about your allegation that Alexander Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Interrogatory No. 3: If you denied Request for Admission 2, provide the date and time of t’s Discovery Page 22 each communication and a verbatim recitation of each communication. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further asserts the physician/patient privilege pursuant to Tex.R. Evid. 509 and 510. Request for Admission 3: Admit or deny that John Doe II'sbirth mother is not a party to this lawsuit. Request for Admission 4: Admit or deny that you told the parents of other students at the Anderson School that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Admit. Interrogatory No. 4: If you admitted request for admission 4, provide the name, address, telephone number of each parent that you told Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Also, provide the date and time of each communication. See Answer to Interrogatory number 2 above. Request for Production No. 7: Produce any documents that support your allegation that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this is simply a fishing expedition as Loftin v. Martin. Plaintiff will produce all documents that are relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence through the course of discovery. Request for Admission 5: Admit or deny that you did not witness Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II on October 31, 2014. t’s Discovery Page 23 Request for Admission 6: Admit or deny that you have never witnessed Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II. Interrogatory No. 5: Provide the name, address and telephone number of anyone who has witnessed Alexander A. Anderson have sexual contact with John Doe II.Also, provide the date and time of the incident. Plaintiff is not currently aware of any such person. However, discovery is at the earliest stages, and the Anderson Defendants have done everything possible to avoid and evade providing any information as to who was at the fieldtrip, or who the past and present parents and students are at the school. Plaintiff will supplement this Interrogatory as more Interrogatory No. 6: Provide the name, address and school principal of each school John Doe II has ever attended. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, my son went to McCall Elementary School from kindergarten through fourth grade. The address is 400 Scenic Trail, Willow Park , Texas 76087. The phone number Interrogatory No. 7: Explain why John Doe II is no longer at each of the schools identified in answer to interrogatory number 6. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Plaintiff further objects that this Interrogatory fails to seek information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. t’s Discovery Page 24 Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, the school district changed the way some of the schools were configured, so fifth and sixth grades would be in the same school. This meant there would have been approximately 2,000 kids in one school, which was a bigger school than I wanted my son to attend. It was at this time that we found The Anderson Private School. Request for Admission 7: Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II on the Ripley's Believe it or Not field trip on October 31, 2014. Admit. Request for Admission 8: Admit or deny that you accompanied John Doe II into each exhibit at Ripley's Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014. Interrogatory No. 8: If you denied request for admission 8, please explain why you did not accompany John Doe II into each exhibit on October 31, 2014. My son got out of my sight for a very short period of time, and Alexander Anderson took Request for Admission 9: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not was open to the general public on October 31, 2014. Request for Admission 10: Admit or deny that Other Patrons were at Ripley's Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014. "Other patrons" is defined as persons other than the Anderson Private School students, parents, teachers and chaperons. t’s Discovery Page 25 Request for Admission 11: Admit or deny that employees and personnel of Ripley's Believe it or Not were present on October 31, 2014. Request for Admission 12: Admit or deny that Ripley's Believe it or Not had security cameras on October 31, 2014. Request for Production No. 8: Produce any text messages sent or received by you regarding your allegation that Alexander A. Anderson sexually abused John Doe II.This request excludes text messages to or from your attorneys. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any responsive documents, beyond those that the Anderson Defendants already produced, in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this discovery should he receive or obtain any such documents. Request for Production No. 9: Produce any visual images evidencing Alexander Anderson's sexual contact with John Doe II. Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any responsive documents in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this discovery should he receive or Request for Production No. 10: Produce any communications from anyone, except your attorneys, alleging that Alex Anderson ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II.For the purposes of this request, there is no time limit. t’s Discovery Page 26 Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and sought solely for the purpose of harassment. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff does not have any responsive documents in his possession, custody and control, but will supplement this discovery should he receive or Request for Production No. 11: Produce any documents evidencing that any of the Defendants ever sexually abused, in any way, John Doe II. For the purposes of this request, there is no time l