Preview
TH
For reasons known only to which are
unexplained in the motion being served
and almost four weeks after deadline for responding to
the thirdparty subpoena d passed motion for protection.
A motion for pr must be filed bef to respond to the
In re GreCon, Inc. 542 S.W.3d 774, 7 (Tex. App.
Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 1A party
who waits almost to file a motion for pro does not need to be
objections are without meri objections were
y are frivolous. documents are not overbroad or unduly
is an attorney and the former general counsel of Microvast. Defendants lured
Plaintiff into accepting employment at Microvast by promising to grant him stock options
immediately upon his employment. Microvast does not dispute that it made a promise to grant
tions. Rather, Microvast that its promise was conditional that it only
agreed to grant Plaintiff options on the condition that Microvast went through an initial public
Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the Texas Securities
Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and promissory estoppel. Ex. A,
A motion for protection must be filed deadline for ng to
R. Civ. P. 192.6(a) (stating that a on affected by discovery request may move for protection
“within the time permitted for response to the discovery request”). s Defendants conce in their
they were served with the notice tigroup and JPMorgan on May 17, 2019
for Duff& Phelps and Deloi May 22, 2019. (Defs. Mot. for Protection at 5.)
the response nes were June 1 , respectively. Indeed, all but Del
responded by the See, e » Ex. erved on June 7
But Defendants did not file motion until July 8
notified that Plaintiff sought the ved their ability
Defendants contend the subpoenas to third parties are “overly broad,” “unduly
burdensome,” and “seek documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
Defendants are correct that evidence is not necessary to support an objection if the discovery
requests themselves demonstrate overbreadth as a matter of law. In re Union Pac. Res. Co.,22 S.W.3d
338, 341 (Tex.1999) (orig. However, a reasonably tailored discovery request is not
overbroad merely because it may include informatio that is of doubtful relevance, and “parties must
have some latitude in fashioning proper discovery requests.” Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d
813, 815 (Tex. produced no evidence to support
resistance to discovery, a reviewing court is “limited to the wording of the requests in determining
In re Memorial Hermann Healthcare Sys., 274 8.W.3d 195, 202 (Tex.
[14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (emphasis added) A request is facially overbroad when there is
no apparent connectio claims in the lawsuit if it is not li ited in tim at 202
Here, the requests are not “facially overbroad.” This is not a case where the requests have no
apparent connection to the dispute, or are not limited in time, “on their face.” As Defendants conced
all of the requests are limited in time and scope, and all have some connection to the claims asserted
by Plaintiff because Defendants have not demonstrated that would capture
irrelevant documen this objection must be overruled. See, e.g., In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., No.
CV, 2015 WL 6759153, at * Christi Nov. 3, 2015, orig.
(mem. op.) (holding that requests were not facially overbroad when the text of the requests
showed that they were limited to documents created “since March 2012”); see also In re Memorial
Hermann Healthcare Sys.,274 S.W.3d at 204 (“In this case, Memorial Hermann has not demonstrated
that Stealth's request would capture irrelevant documents. . Without such evidence, we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Memorial Hermann's objections
In any event, even if Plaintiff somehow had the burden of proving that the scope of the
was not overbroad why documents d two years before he joined
and all of the years since are relevant to this case hecoulddoso First, documents relating
to Microvast’s he joined the company are relevant to fraud claim. Smith was
hired in 2016, but Microvast made representations to him before he j the company
other things, its revenues in 2014 and 2015. Dep. of Leon Zheng, at
documents relating to events that happened in 2014 and 2015 are clearly relevant to Plaintiff's claims.
Second, documents relating to the value of the company are also
relevant. Plaintiffs breach of contract and statutory fraud claims share the same damages analysis.
Under both claims, Mr. Smith is entitled to the present value of the stock options. Roustan v.
,No. 02 CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7827, 2011 WL 4502265, at *24 26 (Tex.
Fort Worth Sept. 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the term “actual damages” in
Section 27.01 includes benefit Thus, documents relating to the value of
The party seeking a protective order must show particular, specific and demonstrable injury
by facts sufficient to justify a protective order. Jn re Collins, 286 S.W.3d 911, 919 (Tex. 2009)
cannot simply make conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is
unduly burdensome or unnecessarily harassing. Jn re Alford Chevrolet , 997 S.W.2d 173, 181
attached no evidence to motion to quash that would demonstrate that
the requests are unduly burdensome or harassing. Nor could they: No undue burden would be placed
because the documents have been party witnesses, not
Without evidence supporting claim of undue bu , this Court would
Respectfully submitted,
STURM LAW, PLLC
/s/ Charles Sturm
Charles Sturm
Texas Bar No. 24003020
OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
s/ Mark J. Oberti w/perm. by Charles Sturm
Mark J. Oberti
State Bar No.
Edwin Sullivan
State Bar No. 24003024
712 Main Street, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone
mark@osattorneys.com
ed@osattorneys.com
TTORNEYS FOR LAINTIFF
ERTIFICATE OF _ERVICE
I certify that on July , a copy of the foregoing document was sent to counsel of
record via the Court’s electronic filing system
Glenn A. Ballard, Jr.
Laura Gibson
Mukul S. Kelkar
DENTONS US LLP
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
Houston, TX
glenn.ballard@dentons.com
laura.gibson@dentons.com
mukul.kelkar@dentons.com
TTORNEYS FOR EFENDANT
/s/ Charles A. Sturm
Preview
TH For reasons known only to which are unexplained in the motion being served and almost four weeks after deadline for responding to the thirdparty subpoena d passed motion for protection. A motion for pr must be filed bef to respond to the In re GreCon, Inc. 542 S.W.3d 774, 7 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 1A party who waits almost to file a motion for pro does not need to be objections are without meri objections were y are frivolous. documents are not overbroad or unduly is an attorney and the former general counsel of Microvast. Defendants lured Plaintiff into accepting employment at Microvast by promising to grant him stock options immediately upon his employment. Microvast does not dispute that it made a promise to grant tions. Rather, Microvast that its promise was conditional that it only agreed to grant Plaintiff options on the condition that Microvast went through an initial public Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the Texas Securities Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and promissory estoppel. Ex. A, A motion for protection must be filed deadline for ng to R. Civ. P. 192.6(a) (stating that a on affected by discovery request may move for protection “within the time permitted for response to the discovery request”). s Defendants conce in their they were served with the notice tigroup and JPMorgan on May 17, 2019 for Duff& Phelps and Deloi May 22, 2019. (Defs. Mot. for Protection at 5.) the response nes were June 1 , respectively. Indeed, all but Del responded by the See, e » Ex. erved on June 7 But Defendants did not file motion until July 8 notified that Plaintiff sought the ved their ability Defendants contend the subpoenas to third parties are “overly broad,” “unduly burdensome,” and “seek documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Defendants are correct that evidence is not necessary to support an objection if the discovery requests themselves demonstrate overbreadth as a matter of law. In re Union Pac. Res. Co.,22 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex.1999) (orig. However, a reasonably tailored discovery request is not overbroad merely because it may include informatio that is of doubtful relevance, and “parties must have some latitude in fashioning proper discovery requests.” Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. produced no evidence to support resistance to discovery, a reviewing court is “limited to the wording of the requests in determining In re Memorial Hermann Healthcare Sys., 274 8.W.3d 195, 202 (Tex. [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (emphasis added) A request is facially overbroad when there is no apparent connectio claims in the lawsuit if it is not li ited in tim at 202 Here, the requests are not “facially overbroad.” This is not a case where the requests have no apparent connection to the dispute, or are not limited in time, “on their face.” As Defendants conced all of the requests are limited in time and scope, and all have some connection to the claims asserted by Plaintiff because Defendants have not demonstrated that would capture irrelevant documen this objection must be overruled. See, e.g., In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., No. CV, 2015 WL 6759153, at * Christi Nov. 3, 2015, orig. (mem. op.) (holding that requests were not facially overbroad when the text of the requests showed that they were limited to documents created “since March 2012”); see also In re Memorial Hermann Healthcare Sys.,274 S.W.3d at 204 (“In this case, Memorial Hermann has not demonstrated that Stealth's request would capture irrelevant documents. . Without such evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Memorial Hermann's objections In any event, even if Plaintiff somehow had the burden of proving that the scope of the was not overbroad why documents d two years before he joined and all of the years since are relevant to this case hecoulddoso First, documents relating to Microvast’s he joined the company are relevant to fraud claim. Smith was hired in 2016, but Microvast made representations to him before he j the company other things, its revenues in 2014 and 2015. Dep. of Leon Zheng, at documents relating to events that happened in 2014 and 2015 are clearly relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Second, documents relating to the value of the company are also relevant. Plaintiffs breach of contract and statutory fraud claims share the same damages analysis. Under both claims, Mr. Smith is entitled to the present value of the stock options. Roustan v. ,No. 02 CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7827, 2011 WL 4502265, at *24 26 (Tex. Fort Worth Sept. 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the term “actual damages” in Section 27.01 includes benefit Thus, documents relating to the value of The party seeking a protective order must show particular, specific and demonstrable injury by facts sufficient to justify a protective order. Jn re Collins, 286 S.W.3d 911, 919 (Tex. 2009) cannot simply make conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is unduly burdensome or unnecessarily harassing. Jn re Alford Chevrolet , 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 attached no evidence to motion to quash that would demonstrate that the requests are unduly burdensome or harassing. Nor could they: No undue burden would be placed because the documents have been party witnesses, not Without evidence supporting claim of undue bu , this Court would Respectfully submitted, STURM LAW, PLLC /s/ Charles Sturm Charles Sturm Texas Bar No. 24003020 OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP s/ Mark J. Oberti w/perm. by Charles Sturm Mark J. Oberti State Bar No. Edwin Sullivan State Bar No. 24003024 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone mark@osattorneys.com ed@osattorneys.com TTORNEYS FOR LAINTIFF ERTIFICATE OF _ERVICE I certify that on July , a copy of the foregoing document was sent to counsel of record via the Court’s electronic filing system Glenn A. Ballard, Jr. Laura Gibson Mukul S. Kelkar DENTONS US LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX glenn.ballard@dentons.com laura.gibson@dentons.com mukul.kelkar@dentons.com TTORNEYS FOR EFENDANT /s/ Charles A. Sturm