Preview
I, Individually
Plaintiffs,
v.
RIVATE
NDERSON
NDIVIDUALLY
UDICIAL
NTERTAINMENT
EXAS
MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS FOR A
ERJURY AND VIDENCE AND EVENTH
Sanctions for a Pattern of Discovery Abuse, C
A. Anderson (collectively “The Anderson Defendants”), and in support thereof would
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As the Court knows, this is a tragic, gut-wrenching case where Alexander
Anderson preyed upon and sexually assaulted an 11 year old boy with autism on a
school field trip to Ripley’s
ignored the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in a number of ways. In doing so, The
Anderson Defendants have caused the expense of prosecuting this case to skyrocket,
while taking up a considerable amount of the Court’s time. The Court well knows how
many times Plaintiffs have been forced to file motions seeking to compel The Anderson
Defendants to comply with the . A summary of these Motions and the Court’s
In response to The Anderson Defendants’ objecting to every single
Request for Production in Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, which
necessitated Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel
EVERY SINGLE objection, except for one Request seeking a roster of
parents of students of the school, which the Court allowed additional
briefing regarding the
fing by the parties discussed
immediately above, the Court determined that FERPA did not apply, as
the school received no federal money and even if FERPA applied, it
specifically exempts “roster information” from privacy. Thus, the Court
ordered the production of the roster
September 30, 2015 Order on Compel.
Order on Defendants’ Combined Motion to Amend or Clarify The Court’s September 30, 2015 Order.
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 2
In response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Second Request
for Production, The Anderson Defendants again asserted baseless,
boilerplate objections, necessitati
SINGLE objection The Anderson
Defendants asserted.
In response to Plaintiffs requests for medical records of Alexander A.
Anderson, The Anderson Defendants again asserted baseless,
boilerplate objections, necessita
The Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the records be the
subject of an in camera review, and the Court again overruled The
In response to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories, Second Request
for Admissions and Third Request for Production, The Anderson
Defendants again asserted baseless, boilerplate objections
necessitating a Fourth Motion to Compel.
For the first time, The Anderson Defendants agreed to remove a
number of their objections in their entirety, so Plaintiffs agreed to pull
It was learned that The Anderson Defendants withheld 2 very
important and highly relevant documents in the discovery process,
which this Court chastised counsel for The Anderson Defendants in
Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel The Anderson Private School.
November 18, 2015 Order on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel The Anderson Private School.
Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Compel The Anderson Defendants.
November 18, 2015 Order on Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Compel Anderson Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Motion to Compel and for Sanctions Against The Anderson Defendants.
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 3
PERJURY
A. Sworn Interrogatory Answers and Affidavit by LeVonna C Anderson
Plaintiffs served a Second Set of Interrogatories on LeVonna C. Anderson.
LeVonna C. Anderson answered with numerous unfounded, boilerplate objections.
LeVonna C. Anderson later agreed to withdraw the unfounded, boilerplate objections
and provide complete answers to avoid yet another Motion to Compel. It has since
been learned that LeVonna C. Anderson lied in her sworn answers. Interrogatory No. 2
lephone number of any persons,
except your attorneys or any Defendants in this case, with whom you
made the Negative Comments to. Also, provide the date and time of
each communication and the specific comments You made that fall
Cespedes, Gabriel Francis and Jennifer
Fort Worth, Texas 76109
As stated, it has since been learned that this answer was totally false, and
left out numerous defamatory statements LeVonna C. Anderson made about John Doe I.
Recently, an audio recording has been discovered wherein LeVonna C. Anderson tells
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 4
i. “the ex-wife, who was drunk the day you saw her out there. She
told me that [John Doe I] does drugs on a daily basis. “She said the reason
[John Doe I] took the RV was so that [John Doe I] could go [to Ripley’s]
ii. “[after coming in from the RV] [John Doe I] was tweaking like you
iii. referred to John Doe I as
These statements are all text book defamation, and LeVonna C. Anderson lied under
oath by omitting them from her sworn Interrogatory Answer. Moreover, LeVonna C.
Anderson admitted at her deposition that she omitted the name Julie Kline from her
answer to Interrogatory numbers 2 and 3. This is another huge omission, as it is an
actionable act of defamation by LeVonna C. Anderson. These lies go to the heart of the
5. Moreover, it has been learned that LeVonna C. Anderson committed
perjury in an affidavit used in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. In
the affidavit, LeVonna C. Anderson swore under oath that John Doe I’s ex-wife told her
that John Doe I uses drugs daily and that he has extreme paranoia. Both of these
statements are untrue. She later told these and other lies to the Grand Prairie Police
Department. In her deposition, LeVonna C. Anderson stated that she only overheard
John Doe I’s ex-wife tell some other person (who she cannot recall who it was) that John
See affidavit of LeVonna C. Anderson dated April 7, 2016.
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 5
Doe I uses marijuana daily. Overhearing a statement to some unknown person is far
different than being told directly, as sworn to in the affidavit. Moreover, LeVonna C.
Anderson admitted in her deposition that John Doe I’s ex-wife did not even tell her he
suffers from paranoia. She simply made itup. These false statements are all textbook
perjury.
B. Sworn Affidavit and Interrogato
We have seen the October 2, 2015 Affidavit of William C. Anderson
paraded before this court for over a year. It was the basis for the FERPA briefing that
took countless hours for the attorneys and the Court. It was the basis for multiple
derogatory comments about John Doe I by counsel for The Anderson Defendants,
stating in open court that John Doe I was going around and defaming the Anderson
Defendants to multiple parents at the Anderson School. It was even the basis for a
summary judgment motion filed by the Anderson Defendants. As it turns out, the
affidavit is full of lies and the affiant (William C. Anderson) had little personal knowledge
s vague as to who the unnamed parents it cited
were, John Doe I sent interrogatories seeking clarification, and William C. Anderson
provided answers to clarify. 10 As it turns out, the sworn answers provided by William C.
See Affidavit of William C. Anderson dated October 2, 2015.
See Defendant William C. Anderson’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories to
Defendant William C. Anderson.
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 6
Anderson were simply more lies. In his deposition, William C. Anderson admitted that
his Interrogatory answer pertaining to the Youngblood family was inaccurate, but stuck
to his guns as it pertains to the Cespedes family. However, the audio tape proves that
William C. Anderson lied in his Interrogatory answers AND his deposition, as itpertains
to the Cespedes family.
William C. Anderson also signed a sworn affidavit in April 2016, which also
In the affidavit, William C. Anderson stated when he saw John Doe I
his eyes appeared to be dilated and he looked like he had been doing drugs. However,
in his deposition, he completely backed away from this sworn statement, and said he
does not think John Doe I was doing drugs that day. The lies in the affidavit,
Interrogatory Answer and depositi
C. Deposition Testimony of William C. Anderson
The deposition of William C. Anderson was taken on October 12, 2016.
William C. Anderson lied about defamatory statements that he made about John Doe I,
as well as what he saw at Ripley’s Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014. These lies
amount to perjury.
See affidavit of William C. Anderson dated April 7, 2016.
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 7
D. Providing False Information to GPPD
On December 18, 2014 LeVonna C. Anderson was interviewed by Detective
Brad Makovy of the Grand Prairie Police Department. In that interview, LeVonna C.
E. Contempt of Court Order Regarding Video Recordings
After a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiffs and a hearing, this Court
Ordered the following:
Defendant shall produce any video or audio recordings of Plaintiffs in
Defendant’s possession, custody or control depicting Plaintiffs from
October 31, 2014 forward. The documents shall be produced to Plaintiffs
by November 30, 2015. Defendant shall also search for any video or audio
recordings depicting Plaintiffs prior to October 31, 2014, and report to the
Court whether any such recordings exist and whether they depict any
other children, and the Court will then determine to what extent they are
discoverable.
There are no video or audio recordings of the Plaintiffs. John Doe II
attended the Anderson Private School late September to October 31, 2014.
The surveillance system is on a loop and only capable of storing limited
data based on motion. A search of the surveillance system did not
discover any images of the Plaintiffs. The surveillance system has limited
storage capacity and replaces the oldest images with new images in a
perpetual loop. Anderson Private School did not receive notice of this
lawsuit until many weeks after images of John Doe I or John Doe II would
have been automatically deleted by the surveillance system because of the
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 8
As it turns out, this is all a total fabrication. As stated, Plaintiffs recently
discovered an audio recording of LeVonna C. Anderson from February 2015 detailing
specifically how the Anderson Defendants made sure to keep the video recordings in
the school for the exact time frame requested. She stated they “immediately pulled the
hard drives out, so we have…2 months of everything that happened in every room and
This behavior is egregious, and in direct contradiction of a Court Order
constituting contempt of Court. Sadly, this has been a pattern for The Anderson
ve been discovered without the significant expense and
effort put forth by Plaintiffs.
Moreover, the destruction of the video recordings is clear spoliation of
evidence. It is clear that The Anderson Defendants had a duty to reasonably preserve
the video recordings (they admit this fact themselves), and they either intentionally
destroyed the video recordings, or simply refused to produce them.
It has been learned that the video cameras are placed throughout the
school, and the recordings would contain critical information. Part of this information is
how often and for how long a young boy went into William C. Anderson’s office alone
with William C. Anderson with the door shut. It would also show the young boy’s
demeanor and appearance when coming out of William C. Anderson’s office. This is but
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 9
one depiction that the video would show that may support Plaintiffs’ case. There is no
telling what those videos show that may support Plaintiffs’ case. Think how much
harder this case would be to prove if Plaintiffs would not have discovered the audio
16. Plaintiffs further bring their Seventh Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs served a
Request for Entry on Property on September 30, 2016. The Anderson Defendants have
sued John Doe I for defamation for alleged statements about William C. Anderson
sexually abusing students at the school. Deposition testimony
William C. Anderson would take a young boy into his office alone with the door shut
and locked. There has also been testimony about the “red flags” that witnesses had
Anderson’s office with the video monitors in his office. Plaintiffs are entitled to inspect
and photograph these areas. This request is even more necessary in light of the
Anderson Defendants destroying the video tape recordings as outlined above. The
Request stated as follows:
Plaintiff requests access to the Anderson Private School to photograph
and videotape all areas depicted in Exhibit “A”, the shed where Alexander
lled the storm shelter. It is
anticipated that the inspection will last approximately one to two hours,
and can be performed at 4:00pm, so school will not be in session. Plaintiff
Requests the inspection occur on Tu
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 10
Unfortunately, the Anderson Defendants objected to any inspection and despite the
explanation of Plaintiffs’ need for the inspection, refused the request. Plaintiffs seek an
on and sanctions against Defendants for their continued
17. Plaintiffs further seek an Order compelling the Anderson Defendants to
fully respond to Requests for Disclosure, specifically persons with knowledge of relevant
facts. The Anderson Defendants have failed to provide information on individuals
despite repeated requests to do so. These individuals include Samantha Herek, Rebena
(last name unknown), Maria (last name unknown) and Max Stone’s address. Ms. Herek,
Rebena and Maria are persons that have knowledge of Alexander Anderson’s personal
history, and are the only people Alexander Anderson claims to have had any sort of
romantic relationship with. These individuals are relevant to Alexander Anderson’s
sexual proclivities and difficulties having romantic relationships with adults. Max Stone
is allegedly a source of the defamatory statements made by LeVonna C. Anderson.
However, his address is unknown, despite recent and regular contact by LeVonna C.
As a result of the continuous discovery abuse, Contempt of Court, Perjury
and Spoliation by The Anderson Defendants, Plaintiffs seek Sanctions pursuant to Texas
215.2(b), which provides for the following:
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 11
(1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind
(2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable
court costs or both against the disobedient party or the attorn
(3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in
the party obtaining the order;
(4) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose
designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated
matters in evidence;
eadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings
until the order is obeyed, or dismissing with or without prejudice the action or
proceedings or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the
disobedient party;
(6) in lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating
as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit
to a physical or mental examination;
(8) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall
require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or both,
to pay, at such time as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including
attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was
substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust. Such an order shall be subject to review on appeal from the final
In this matter, Plaintiffs have been forced to bring six separate Motions to
Compel against The Anderson Defendants, because they keep trying to thwart the
discovery process by objecting to the most basic discovery with baseless and frivolous
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 12
objections, as well as failing to cooperate in the most basic sense. Although the Court
continues to overrule their objections, The Anderson Defendants keep repeating the
same improper behavior. As stated, the
pending, as a result of The Anderson Defendants withholding critical documents in this
case. Add to that the latest unethical conduct by The Anderson Defendants, and no
After an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs request that this Court order all or
any combination of the following:
(1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind
(2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable
court costs or both against the Anderson Defendants or their attorney;
(3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in
(4) an order refusing to allow the Anderson Defendants to support or oppose
designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting them from introducing designated
matters in evidence;
(5) an order striking the Anderson Defendants’ pleadings or parts thereof, or
against the Anderson Defendants;
(6) in lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating
fendants’ failure to obey any orders;
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 13
(7) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall
require the Anderson Defendants or their attorney, or both, to pay, at such time
as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused
by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or
an award of expenses unjust.
Plaintiffs further seek any other relief that they may be entitled, both at law and
JS
OHN LOAN
SLOAN MATNEY, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave.
jsloan@sloanmatney.com
dlukasik@sloanmatney.com
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 14
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for Movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a
conference at which there was a substantive discussion on every item presented to the
Court in this motion and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve
those matters presented.
Certified to the 28th day of November, 2016 by:
JS
__________________________________________________
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 128th day of November, 2016 a true and correct copy
served via e-service and email on:
Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P.
10440 North Central Expressway
Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500
todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com
ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com
Rocky Feemster
Touchstone, Bernays
4040 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
rocky.feemster@tbjbs.com
Fort Worth, Texas 76126
robert@rhammerlaw.com JS
John D. Sloan, Jr.
4824-8989-2669, v.1
IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 16
Preview
I, Individually Plaintiffs, v. RIVATE NDERSON NDIVIDUALLY UDICIAL NTERTAINMENT EXAS MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS FOR A ERJURY AND VIDENCE AND EVENTH Sanctions for a Pattern of Discovery Abuse, C A. Anderson (collectively “The Anderson Defendants”), and in support thereof would IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As the Court knows, this is a tragic, gut-wrenching case where Alexander Anderson preyed upon and sexually assaulted an 11 year old boy with autism on a school field trip to Ripley’s ignored the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in a number of ways. In doing so, The Anderson Defendants have caused the expense of prosecuting this case to skyrocket, while taking up a considerable amount of the Court’s time. The Court well knows how many times Plaintiffs have been forced to file motions seeking to compel The Anderson Defendants to comply with the . A summary of these Motions and the Court’s In response to The Anderson Defendants’ objecting to every single Request for Production in Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, which necessitated Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel EVERY SINGLE objection, except for one Request seeking a roster of parents of students of the school, which the Court allowed additional briefing regarding the fing by the parties discussed immediately above, the Court determined that FERPA did not apply, as the school received no federal money and even if FERPA applied, it specifically exempts “roster information” from privacy. Thus, the Court ordered the production of the roster September 30, 2015 Order on Compel. Order on Defendants’ Combined Motion to Amend or Clarify The Court’s September 30, 2015 Order. IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 2 In response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production, The Anderson Defendants again asserted baseless, boilerplate objections, necessitati SINGLE objection The Anderson Defendants asserted. In response to Plaintiffs requests for medical records of Alexander A. Anderson, The Anderson Defendants again asserted baseless, boilerplate objections, necessita The Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the records be the subject of an in camera review, and the Court again overruled The In response to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories, Second Request for Admissions and Third Request for Production, The Anderson Defendants again asserted baseless, boilerplate objections necessitating a Fourth Motion to Compel. For the first time, The Anderson Defendants agreed to remove a number of their objections in their entirety, so Plaintiffs agreed to pull It was learned that The Anderson Defendants withheld 2 very important and highly relevant documents in the discovery process, which this Court chastised counsel for The Anderson Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel The Anderson Private School. November 18, 2015 Order on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel The Anderson Private School. Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Compel The Anderson Defendants. November 18, 2015 Order on Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Compel Anderson Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Motion to Compel and for Sanctions Against The Anderson Defendants. IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 3 PERJURY A. Sworn Interrogatory Answers and Affidavit by LeVonna C Anderson Plaintiffs served a Second Set of Interrogatories on LeVonna C. Anderson. LeVonna C. Anderson answered with numerous unfounded, boilerplate objections. LeVonna C. Anderson later agreed to withdraw the unfounded, boilerplate objections and provide complete answers to avoid yet another Motion to Compel. It has since been learned that LeVonna C. Anderson lied in her sworn answers. Interrogatory No. 2 lephone number of any persons, except your attorneys or any Defendants in this case, with whom you made the Negative Comments to. Also, provide the date and time of each communication and the specific comments You made that fall Cespedes, Gabriel Francis and Jennifer Fort Worth, Texas 76109 As stated, it has since been learned that this answer was totally false, and left out numerous defamatory statements LeVonna C. Anderson made about John Doe I. Recently, an audio recording has been discovered wherein LeVonna C. Anderson tells IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 4 i. “the ex-wife, who was drunk the day you saw her out there. She told me that [John Doe I] does drugs on a daily basis. “She said the reason [John Doe I] took the RV was so that [John Doe I] could go [to Ripley’s] ii. “[after coming in from the RV] [John Doe I] was tweaking like you iii. referred to John Doe I as These statements are all text book defamation, and LeVonna C. Anderson lied under oath by omitting them from her sworn Interrogatory Answer. Moreover, LeVonna C. Anderson admitted at her deposition that she omitted the name Julie Kline from her answer to Interrogatory numbers 2 and 3. This is another huge omission, as it is an actionable act of defamation by LeVonna C. Anderson. These lies go to the heart of the 5. Moreover, it has been learned that LeVonna C. Anderson committed perjury in an affidavit used in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. In the affidavit, LeVonna C. Anderson swore under oath that John Doe I’s ex-wife told her that John Doe I uses drugs daily and that he has extreme paranoia. Both of these statements are untrue. She later told these and other lies to the Grand Prairie Police Department. In her deposition, LeVonna C. Anderson stated that she only overheard John Doe I’s ex-wife tell some other person (who she cannot recall who it was) that John See affidavit of LeVonna C. Anderson dated April 7, 2016. IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 5 Doe I uses marijuana daily. Overhearing a statement to some unknown person is far different than being told directly, as sworn to in the affidavit. Moreover, LeVonna C. Anderson admitted in her deposition that John Doe I’s ex-wife did not even tell her he suffers from paranoia. She simply made itup. These false statements are all textbook perjury. B. Sworn Affidavit and Interrogato We have seen the October 2, 2015 Affidavit of William C. Anderson paraded before this court for over a year. It was the basis for the FERPA briefing that took countless hours for the attorneys and the Court. It was the basis for multiple derogatory comments about John Doe I by counsel for The Anderson Defendants, stating in open court that John Doe I was going around and defaming the Anderson Defendants to multiple parents at the Anderson School. It was even the basis for a summary judgment motion filed by the Anderson Defendants. As it turns out, the affidavit is full of lies and the affiant (William C. Anderson) had little personal knowledge s vague as to who the unnamed parents it cited were, John Doe I sent interrogatories seeking clarification, and William C. Anderson provided answers to clarify. 10 As it turns out, the sworn answers provided by William C. See Affidavit of William C. Anderson dated October 2, 2015. See Defendant William C. Anderson’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant William C. Anderson. IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 6 Anderson were simply more lies. In his deposition, William C. Anderson admitted that his Interrogatory answer pertaining to the Youngblood family was inaccurate, but stuck to his guns as it pertains to the Cespedes family. However, the audio tape proves that William C. Anderson lied in his Interrogatory answers AND his deposition, as itpertains to the Cespedes family. William C. Anderson also signed a sworn affidavit in April 2016, which also In the affidavit, William C. Anderson stated when he saw John Doe I his eyes appeared to be dilated and he looked like he had been doing drugs. However, in his deposition, he completely backed away from this sworn statement, and said he does not think John Doe I was doing drugs that day. The lies in the affidavit, Interrogatory Answer and depositi C. Deposition Testimony of William C. Anderson The deposition of William C. Anderson was taken on October 12, 2016. William C. Anderson lied about defamatory statements that he made about John Doe I, as well as what he saw at Ripley’s Believe it or Not on October 31, 2014. These lies amount to perjury. See affidavit of William C. Anderson dated April 7, 2016. IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 7 D. Providing False Information to GPPD On December 18, 2014 LeVonna C. Anderson was interviewed by Detective Brad Makovy of the Grand Prairie Police Department. In that interview, LeVonna C. E. Contempt of Court Order Regarding Video Recordings After a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiffs and a hearing, this Court Ordered the following: Defendant shall produce any video or audio recordings of Plaintiffs in Defendant’s possession, custody or control depicting Plaintiffs from October 31, 2014 forward. The documents shall be produced to Plaintiffs by November 30, 2015. Defendant shall also search for any video or audio recordings depicting Plaintiffs prior to October 31, 2014, and report to the Court whether any such recordings exist and whether they depict any other children, and the Court will then determine to what extent they are discoverable. There are no video or audio recordings of the Plaintiffs. John Doe II attended the Anderson Private School late September to October 31, 2014. The surveillance system is on a loop and only capable of storing limited data based on motion. A search of the surveillance system did not discover any images of the Plaintiffs. The surveillance system has limited storage capacity and replaces the oldest images with new images in a perpetual loop. Anderson Private School did not receive notice of this lawsuit until many weeks after images of John Doe I or John Doe II would have been automatically deleted by the surveillance system because of the IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 8 As it turns out, this is all a total fabrication. As stated, Plaintiffs recently discovered an audio recording of LeVonna C. Anderson from February 2015 detailing specifically how the Anderson Defendants made sure to keep the video recordings in the school for the exact time frame requested. She stated they “immediately pulled the hard drives out, so we have…2 months of everything that happened in every room and This behavior is egregious, and in direct contradiction of a Court Order constituting contempt of Court. Sadly, this has been a pattern for The Anderson ve been discovered without the significant expense and effort put forth by Plaintiffs. Moreover, the destruction of the video recordings is clear spoliation of evidence. It is clear that The Anderson Defendants had a duty to reasonably preserve the video recordings (they admit this fact themselves), and they either intentionally destroyed the video recordings, or simply refused to produce them. It has been learned that the video cameras are placed throughout the school, and the recordings would contain critical information. Part of this information is how often and for how long a young boy went into William C. Anderson’s office alone with William C. Anderson with the door shut. It would also show the young boy’s demeanor and appearance when coming out of William C. Anderson’s office. This is but IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 9 one depiction that the video would show that may support Plaintiffs’ case. There is no telling what those videos show that may support Plaintiffs’ case. Think how much harder this case would be to prove if Plaintiffs would not have discovered the audio 16. Plaintiffs further bring their Seventh Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs served a Request for Entry on Property on September 30, 2016. The Anderson Defendants have sued John Doe I for defamation for alleged statements about William C. Anderson sexually abusing students at the school. Deposition testimony William C. Anderson would take a young boy into his office alone with the door shut and locked. There has also been testimony about the “red flags” that witnesses had Anderson’s office with the video monitors in his office. Plaintiffs are entitled to inspect and photograph these areas. This request is even more necessary in light of the Anderson Defendants destroying the video tape recordings as outlined above. The Request stated as follows: Plaintiff requests access to the Anderson Private School to photograph and videotape all areas depicted in Exhibit “A”, the shed where Alexander lled the storm shelter. It is anticipated that the inspection will last approximately one to two hours, and can be performed at 4:00pm, so school will not be in session. Plaintiff Requests the inspection occur on Tu IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 10 Unfortunately, the Anderson Defendants objected to any inspection and despite the explanation of Plaintiffs’ need for the inspection, refused the request. Plaintiffs seek an on and sanctions against Defendants for their continued 17. Plaintiffs further seek an Order compelling the Anderson Defendants to fully respond to Requests for Disclosure, specifically persons with knowledge of relevant facts. The Anderson Defendants have failed to provide information on individuals despite repeated requests to do so. These individuals include Samantha Herek, Rebena (last name unknown), Maria (last name unknown) and Max Stone’s address. Ms. Herek, Rebena and Maria are persons that have knowledge of Alexander Anderson’s personal history, and are the only people Alexander Anderson claims to have had any sort of romantic relationship with. These individuals are relevant to Alexander Anderson’s sexual proclivities and difficulties having romantic relationships with adults. Max Stone is allegedly a source of the defamatory statements made by LeVonna C. Anderson. However, his address is unknown, despite recent and regular contact by LeVonna C. As a result of the continuous discovery abuse, Contempt of Court, Perjury and Spoliation by The Anderson Defendants, Plaintiffs seek Sanctions pursuant to Texas 215.2(b), which provides for the following: IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 11 (1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind (2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both against the disobedient party or the attorn (3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in the party obtaining the order; (4) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence; eadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing with or without prejudice the action or proceedings or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; (6) in lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination; (8) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or both, to pay, at such time as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Such an order shall be subject to review on appeal from the final In this matter, Plaintiffs have been forced to bring six separate Motions to Compel against The Anderson Defendants, because they keep trying to thwart the discovery process by objecting to the most basic discovery with baseless and frivolous IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 12 objections, as well as failing to cooperate in the most basic sense. Although the Court continues to overrule their objections, The Anderson Defendants keep repeating the same improper behavior. As stated, the pending, as a result of The Anderson Defendants withholding critical documents in this case. Add to that the latest unethical conduct by The Anderson Defendants, and no After an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs request that this Court order all or any combination of the following: (1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind (2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both against the Anderson Defendants or their attorney; (3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in (4) an order refusing to allow the Anderson Defendants to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting them from introducing designated matters in evidence; (5) an order striking the Anderson Defendants’ pleadings or parts thereof, or against the Anderson Defendants; (6) in lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating fendants’ failure to obey any orders; IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 13 (7) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the Anderson Defendants or their attorney, or both, to pay, at such time as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or an award of expenses unjust. Plaintiffs further seek any other relief that they may be entitled, both at law and JS OHN LOAN SLOAN MATNEY, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave. jsloan@sloanmatney.com dlukasik@sloanmatney.com IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 14 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for Movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference at which there was a substantive discussion on every item presented to the Court in this motion and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented. Certified to the 28th day of November, 2016 by: JS __________________________________________________ IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 128th day of November, 2016 a true and correct copy served via e-service and email on: Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. 10440 North Central Expressway Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 todd.parks@wbclawfirm.com ParksEDocsNotifications@wbclawfirm.com Rocky Feemster Touchstone, Bernays 4040 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270 rocky.feemster@tbjbs.com Fort Worth, Texas 76126 robert@rhammerlaw.com JS John D. Sloan, Jr. 4824-8989-2669, v.1 IRST MENDED OTION FOR ANCTIONS AND EVENTH OTION TO OMPEL Page 16