Legal Document: JOSEPH PARKER, et al vs. ERWIN HERNANDEZ, et al

On July 01, 2019 a ORIGINAL PETITION was filed involving a dispute between Parker, Hazel, Parker, Joseph, and American Institute Of Toxicology, Inc., Hernandez, Erwin, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
7/1/2019 9:17 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DC-19-09304
NO. ___________________ Alicia Mata

JOSEPH PARKER and HAZEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PARKER, §
Plaintiffs §
§
V. §
§ H-160TH
NUMBER ________
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF §
TOXICOLOGY, INC d/b/a AIT §
LABORATORIES, A §
HEALTHTRACKRX COMPANY §
and ERWIN HERNANDEZ, §
Defendants § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Joseph Parker and Hazel Parker, Plaintiffs, complain of American Institute of

Toxicology, Inc d/b/a AIT Laboratories, a HealthTrackRx Company (herein referred to as “AIT

Laboratories”) and Erwin Hernandez (a/k/a Erwin Quiroz), Defendants, and show this Honorable

Court the following:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL

Discovery will be conducted under Level 3, TEX.R.CIV.P.190.4.

II. REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs request that Defendants individually respond to the attached discovery

requests:

A. Requests for Disclosures;

B. Interrogatories;

C. Requests for Production of Documents; and

D. Requests for Admission of Facts.

III. PARTIES
1. Joseph Parker, Social Security Number ***-**-*580, Texas Driver’s License

Number *****377, resides in Fort Worth, Texas.

2. Hazel Parker, Social Security Number ***-**-*060, Texas Driver’s License

Number *****378, resides in Fort Worth, Texas.

3. AIT Laboratories is a Texas corporation may be served with process by serving

its registered agent Cogency Global Inc. at 1601 Elm Street., Suite 4360, Dallas, Texas 75201.

4. Erwin Hernandez, a Texas resident, may be served at 3815 Stuart Road,

Apartment 39, Denton, Texas 76209 or wherever he may be found.

5. Pursuant to TEX.R.CIV.PROC.28, Plaintiffs hereby provide notice to Defendants

that they are being sued in all of their business or common names, regardless of whether such

businesses are partnerships, unincorporated associations, subsidiaries, entities, private

corporations, or individuals.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Plaintiffs sue for an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

7. Venue is proper in Dallas County because Defendant Hernandez resided in

Dallas County when the motor vehicle collision that is the subject of this litigation occurred.

V. FACTS

8. On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at approximately 10:36 o’clock a.m., Plaintiff

Joseph Parker was operating his 2017 GMC Acadia. Plaintiff Hazel Parker was a restrained

passenger. Plaintiffs were traveling southbound in the 18000 of Interstate Highway 35-West in

Northlake, Texas. Mr. Parker gradually applied his brakes and came to a complete stop due to

heavy traffic in front of him. His brake lights were illuminated and easily visible to vehicles

behind him.

9. Defendant Edwin Hernandez was speeding behind the Plaintiffs in a large 2017

Dodge Grand Caravan van.
10. Edwin Hernandez was employed by Defendant AIT Laboratories and was driving

the vehicle on its behalf and within the course and scope of his employment.

11. The vehicle had been rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car by AIT Laboratories and

was being operated for the use and benefit of AIT Laboratories.

12. Failing to pay attention to the vehicles in front of him, Hernandez failed to stop

and crashed into the rear of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

13. The force of the impact was so severe that it propelled the Plaintiffs’ vehicle

forward into the steel median fence and over two steel posts, causing them four separate

collisions.

14. As a result of these collisions, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur

serious injuries and enormous damages itemized below.

VI. NEGLIGENCE: EDWIN HERNANDEZ

15. Edwin Hernandez had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably

careful commercial driver would use to avoid harm to others under similar circumstances.

16. Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by Hernandez’s negligent, careless,

and reckless disregard of said duty.

17. The negligent, careless, and reckless disregard of duty of Hernandez consisted of,

but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions:

A. Failing to operate his vehicle at a rate of speed which a commercial driver

of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances would have

done;

B. Failing to apply his brakes in a timely and prudent manner;

C. Failing to keep a proper lookout for Plaintiffs’ safety that would have been

maintained by a commercial driver of ordinary prudence under the same

or similar circumstances;
D. Failing to exercise that degree of care as would have been exercised by a

commercial driver of ordinary prudence under the same or similar

circumstances; and

E. Failing to regard the safety and welfare of other drivers.

VII. NEGLIGENCE PER SE: EDWIN HERNANDEZ

18. Edwin Hernandez’s conduct described herein constitutes an unexcused breach of

duty imposed by the traffic laws and regulations of the United States, the State of Texas and

Denton County, including but not limited to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,

Texas Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and Texas Transportation Code.

19. Plaintiffs are members of the class of drivers and passengers using the roads and

highways of Texas and Denton County that these laws and regulations were designed to protect.

20. Hernandez’s unexcused breach of the duty imposed by these laws and regulations

proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries described herein.

VIII. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: AIT LABORATORIES

21. At the time of the collisions and immediately prior thereto, Edwin Hernandez was

within the course and scope of his employment with AIT Laboratories and was engaged in the

furtherance of its business.

22. At the time of the collisions and immediately prior thereto, Hernandez was

engaged in accomplishing a task for which he had contracted as an employee and agent of AIT

Laboratories.

23. AIT Laboratories is vicariously liable for Plaintiffs’ damages pursuant to the

doctrines of respondeat superior and principal and agency.

X. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT AND RETENTION: AIT LABORATORIES

24. The vehicle operated by Edwin Hernandez was rented by AIT Laboratories for it

use.
25. AIT Laboratories entrusted the vehicle on the highways of Texas to Hernandez, a

reckless and incompetent driver.

26. AIT Laboratories knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have

known, that Hernandez was a reckless and incompetent driver. Nevertheless, AIT Laboratories

retained Hernandez as its employee.

27. As described above, Hernandez was negligent on the occasion in question.

28. Hernandez’s negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.

29. The negligent, careless, and reckless disregard of duty of AIT Laboratories

consisted of, but is not limited to, one or more of the following acts and omissions:

A. Failing to screen, evaluate, or perform an adequate background check into

Hernandez’s past in accordance with law;

B. Failing to hire competent and fit drivers;

C. Failing to properly train Hernandez;

D. Entrusting the vehicle to Hernandez;

E. Permitting Hernandez to operate the vehicle in an unsafe manner;

F. Failing to abide by the rules and regulations promulgated by the United

States Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration;

G. Failing to properly supervise Hernandez; and

H. Failing to establish, enforce and follow safety policies and procedures.

XI. DAMAGES

30. As a direct and proximate result of the collision, Plaintiffs were caused to suffer

and incur the following damages:
A. Medical care and expenses in the past for the necessary care and treatment

of the injuries resulting from the collision, such charges being reasonable

and necessary and the usual and customary charges where provided;

B. Medical care and expenses which will in all reasonable probability be

incurred in the future;

C. Physical pain in the past;

D. Physical pain in the future;

E. Disability in the past;

F. Disability in the future;

G. Mental anguish in the past;

H. Mental anguish in the future; and

I. Disfigurement.

31. Plaintiffs state that they will ask the jury to consider damages over $1,000,000.00

but not more than $2,000,000.00 and reserve the right to file an amended petition or trial

amendment on this amount.

XII. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

32. Edwin Hernandez’s acts or omissions described above, when viewed from his

standpoint at the time of the collision, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the

probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs and others. Hernandez had

actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved in the above described acts or omissions, but

nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiffs

and others. Based on the facts stated herein, Plaintiffs request that exemplary damages be

awarded to them from Hernandez.

33. AIT Laboratories’ acts or omissions described above, when viewed from the

standpoint of said Defendant, at the time of the collision, involved an extreme degree of risk,
considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs and others.

Defendant AIT Laboratories had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved in the above

described acts or omissions, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights,

safety, or welfare of Plaintiffs and others. Based on the facts stated herein, Plaintiffs request that

exemplary damages be awarded to them from AIT Laboratories.

XIII. TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that Defendants

be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial, judgment be entered for Plaintiffs

against Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual and punitive damages in an amount within

the jurisdictional limits of the Court; pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; costs of court; and such other and

further relief to which they may be entitled, at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM K. BERENSON, P.C.
William K. Berenson
State Bar No. 02184500
1701 River Run, Suite 900
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Telephone: 817-885-8000
Facsimile: 817-335-4624
E-mail: bill@berensonlaw.com

By: __________________________
WILLIAM K. BERENSON
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
NO. ___________________

JOSEPH PARKER and HAZEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PARKER, §
Plaintiffs §
§
V. §
§ NUMBER ________
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF §
TOXICOLOGY, INC d/b/a AIT §
LABORATORIES, A §
HEALTHTRACKRX COMPANY §
and ERWIN HERNANDEZ, §
Defendants § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO
DEFENDANT AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOGY, INC

TO: American Institute of Toxicology, Inc, Defendant

Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, you are requested to

disclose, within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material as set forth below.

A response to a request under Rule 194.2(f) is due according to Rule 195.2 of the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure. The disclosures must be signed in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 191.3, and delivered to the undersigned attorney.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM K. BERENSON, P.C.
William K. Berenson
State Bar No. 02184500
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Telephone: 817-885-8000
Facsimile: 817-335-4624
E-mail: bill@berensonlaw.com

By: _________________________
WILLIAM K. BERENSON
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

1. R.194.2(a): State the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit.

2. R.194.2(b): State the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties.

3. R.194.2(c): State the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases for your claims or
defenses.

4. R.194.2(d): State the amount and any method of calculating economic damages (if
any).

5. R.194.2(e): State the name, address, and telephone number of persons having
knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the
case.

6. R.194.2(f): For any testifying expert, state:

1. the expert's name, address, and telephone number;

2. the subject matter on which the expert will testify;

3. the general substance of the expert's mental impressions and a brief
summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or
otherwise subject to your control, documents reflecting such information;

4. if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to your
control:

A) produce all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data
compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or
for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and

B) produce the expert's current resume and bibliography.

7. R.194.2(g): Produce any indemnity and insuring agreements as described in Rule
192.3(f).

8. R.194.2(h): Produce any settlement agreements as described in Rule 192.3(g).
9. R.194.2(i): Produce any witness statements as described in Rule 192.3(h).

10. R.194.2(j): If this is a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the
occurrence that is the subject of the case, produce all medical records and bills that are
reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization
permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills.

11. R.194.2(k): If this is a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the
occurrence that is the subject of the case, produce all medical records and bills obtained by you
by virtue of an authorization furnished by Plaintiff.

12. R.194.2(l): Produce the name, address, and telephone number of any person who may
be designated as a responsible third party.
NO. ___________________

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND FIRST
SET OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANT AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOGY, INC

TO: American Institute of Toxicology, Inc, Defendant

Plaintiffs serve this First Set of Requests for Admission of Facts and First Set of Written

Interrogatories pursuant to Rules 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Responses must be

made within fifty (50) days from receipt of these requests or all requests are deemed admitted as

a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM K. BERENSON, P.C.
William K. Berenson
State Bar No. 02184500
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Telephone: 817-885-8000
Facsimile: 817-335-4624
E-mail: bill@berensonlaw.com

By: _________________________
WILLIAM K. BERENSON
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
DEFINITIONS

1. “Plaintiff(s)” or “Defendant(s)” as well as a party’s full or abbreviated name or a pronoun
referring to a party, means the party, and where applicable, his/her/its agents, representatives,
officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other
person acting in concert with him/her/it or under his/her/its control, whether directly or
indirectly, including any attorney. “You,” “your” or “your company” refers to American
Institute of Toxicology, Inc, its agents, employees, and attorneys.

2. “Collision” or “wreck” or “collision” or “occasion in question,” refers to the automobile
accident described in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition which occurred on December 7, 2017 in
Northlake, Denton County, Texas involving Joseph and Hazel Parker and Erwin Hernandez.

3. "Statement" means a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the
person making it and any recording or transcription contemporaneously recorded.

4. "Document" means both the plural and singular, and each term includes, but is not limited to,
contracts and agreements, correspondence, advertising materials, memoranda, reports,
handwritten notes, surveys, analysis, leases, manuals, questionnaires, computer print-outs,
tapes, compact discs and records of all types, corporate records, minutes of meetings, studies,
books, pamphlets, policy manuals, schedules, job descriptions, photographs, voice
recordings, and every other device or media on which or through which information of any
type is transmitted, recorded, or preserved in the possession, custody or control of Defendant.
The term "documents" also means an authentic copy where the original is not in the
possession, custody, or control of Defendant and every copy of a document where such copy
is not an identical duplicate of the original.

5. "Communication" means any contact between two or more persons or companies and shall
include, without limitation, written contact by means such as letters, memoranda, telegrams,
telex, E-mail, and oral contact by such means such as face to face meetings and telephone
conversations. However, this term is not meant to include any contact which is claimed as
exempt from discovery as party communication, attorney-client privilege, or under any other
exemption.

6. "Relate to" means consist of, discuss, refer to, allude to, pertain to, reflect, concern,
concerning, evidence or be any way logically or factually connected with the matter
discussed.

7. "Identify" when referring:

(a) to a per son, means to state the person's name, and their business and residential
addresses, phone numbers, and if the person is an employee of any Defendant, their job
title.

(b) to a business or gover nmental entity, means to state its full name and present or last
known business address and phone number.

(c) to a statement, means to identify who made it, who took or recorded it, when, where, and
how it was made, and all others, present during the making of the
recording.

(d) to any tangible item or document, means to identify it, to give a reasonably detailed
description of the item, and to state who has present or last known possession, custody, or
control of the item or document.

(e) to any insur ance agr eement, means to list the policy holder, all additional
insured, the policy number, the insurance company carrying the policy, its effective dates,
and the policy limits.

8. “Mobile device” means cellular telephone, satellite telephone, pager, personal digital
assistant, palm top computer, hand-held computer, electronic rolodex, citizens band radio, or
walkie-talkie.

9. “Van” or “Dodge” or “Grand Caravan” means the 2017 Dodge Grand Caravan driven by
Defendant Erwin Hernandez.

10. “SUV” or “GMC” or “Acadia” means the 2017 GMC Acadia driven by Joseph Parker.

11. “Distilled spirits” means vodka, whiskey, rum, tequila, or any other alcoholic beverage of at
least 20% alcohol by volume (40 proof).

12. “Electronically stored information” and ”ESI” means any Information on operational systems
including accounting, financial, distribution, or manufacturing systems; E-mail; Instant
Messages (IM); Web pages; text messages; cell phone data; Excel spreadsheets and
underlying formulae; metadata; computer databases (i.e., Access); erased, fragmented or
damaged data; Blackberry data; and anything stored on computer or other electronic means
located on or in, but not limited to cache memory; optical disks; magnetic tapes/back-up
tapes; magnetic disks (hard drive, floppy disks, etc.); PDAs, Blackberries and Palm Pilots;
cell phones; IM tools; or USB drives.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Please admit the following:

1. Admit that American Institute of Toxicology, Inc is properly named above.
RESPONSE:
INTERROGATORY 1:
If you have denied the preceding request, state the correct legal name of the company.
ANSWER:
2. Admit that all proper parties have been named in this suit.
RESPONSE:

3. Admit that no responsible third party contributed to the cause of the collision.

RESPONSE:

4. Admit that Erwin Hernandez was driving a vehicle that was involved in a collision with
Plaintiffs’ vehicle on December 7, 2017.
RESPONSE:
5. Admit that Edwin Hernandez was an employee of your company on December 7, 2017.
RESPONSE:

6. Admit that Edwin Hernandez is a current employee of your company.
RESPONSE:

7. Admit that your company rented the van driven by Erwin Hernandez.

RESPONSE:

8. Admit that Michael Cannady rented the van driven by Erwin Hernandez on behalf of your
company.

RESPONSE:

9. Admit that Michael Cannady was an employee of your company on December 7, 2017

RESPONSE:

10. Admit that Michael Cannady is a current employee of your company.
RESPONSE:

11. Admit that Defendant American Institute of Toxicology, Inc. permitted Erwin Hernandez to
drive the van at the time of the collision.
RESPONSE:

12. Admit that Erwin Hernandez failed to maintain a proper lookout for the Plaintiffs’ vehicle in
front of him immediately prior to the collision.
RESPONSE:
13. Admit that the subject collision was avoidable.
RESPONSE:

INTERROGATORY 2:

If you have denied the preceding request, state all reasons and provide all facts in support of your
denial.

ANSWER:

14. Admit that no mechanical defect or malfunction in the van Erwin Hernandez was driving
contributed to the cause of the collision.
RESPONSE:

15. Admit that you have produced in your answers to Requests for Production of Documents
being filed herein all policies of insurance that provided liability coverage to Defendant(s) that
were in effect at the time of the collision.
RESPONSE:

INTERROGATORY 3:

Identify every person who has taken photographs and/or video recordings of the Plaintiffs since
the time of the collision.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY 4:

Please identify every person involved in responding to these requests, including their job titles.

ANSWER:
16. Admit that Defendant Hernandez had been involved in one or more other collisions within
the scope of his employment with Defendant American Institute of Toxicology, Inc. prior to the
subject collision in this suit.

RESPONSE:

17. Admit that Defendant Hernandez had been involved in one or more collisions within the
scope of his employment with Defendant American Institute of Toxicology, Inc. since the
subject collision in this suit.

RESPONSE:

INTERROGATORY 6:

If you admitted either of the prior two requests, for each collision state

a. The date of the collision;
b. The location of the collision;
c. The crash report number if one was filed;
d. The name of any other person involved in the collision;
e. A summary of the facts of the collision; and
f. What disciplinary action was taken by American Institute of Toxicology, Inc. against
Defendant Hernandez as a result of the collision.

18. Admit that Defendant Hernandez’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the crash made
the basis of this suit.

RESPONSE:

19. Admit that the Plaintiff Joseph Parker’s actions were not a cause of the crash made the basis
of this suit.

RESPONSE:

20. Admit that the police report attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is the police report for this crash.

RESPONSE:

21. Admit that Defendant Hernandez does not know the speed of the van one second before the
collision between the two vehicles.

RESPONSE:

22. Admit that Defendant Hernandez saw Plaintiffs’ vehicle immediately prior to the collision.

RESPONSE:
23. Admit that Defendant Hernandez was driving at an unsafe speed immediately prior to the
collision considering the traffic conditions.

RESPONSE:

24. Admit that Defendant Hernandez was negligent on the occasion in question.
RESPONSE:
25. Admit that Defendant Hernandez’s negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’
damages.
RESPONSE:
26. Admit that Defendant Hernandez made an oral statement to an insurance company conducted
over the phone and recorded by an agent for the insurance company.
RESPONSE:
27. Admit that the condition of the road surface did not contribute to the cause of the crash.
RESPONSE:
28. Admit that lighting conditions did not contribute to the cause of the crash.
RESPONSE:
29. Admit that weather conditions did not contribute to the cause of the crash.
RESPONSE:
30. Admit that a sudden emergency did not contribute to the cause of the crash.
RESPONSE:
31. Admit that Defendant Hernandez did not maintain proper lookout for vehicles, including
Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately before the collision.
RESPONSE:
32. Admit that Defendant Hernandez’s failure to maintain a proper lookout immediately before
the collision was the proximate cause of his vehicle striking Plaintiff’s vehicle.
RESPONSE:
33. Admit that Defendant Hernandez did not timely apply his brakes prior to the collision.
RESPONSE:
34. Admit that Defendant Hernandez was using a mobile device when the collision occurred.
RESPONSE:
35. Admit that Defendant Hernandez caused the collision.
RESPONSE:
36. Admit that Defendant Hernandez did not act as a reasonably prudent driver before the
collision.
RESPONSE:
37. Admit that Plaintiffs were injured as a result of the collision.
RESPONSE:
38. Admit that Plaintiffs are still injured as a result of the collision.
RESPONSE:
39. Admit that Plaintiffs sought medical treatment as a result of the crash.
RESPONSE:
40. Admit that Plaintiffs still seeks medical treatment as a result of the crash.
RESPONSE:
41. Admit that Plaintiffs’ medical bills are reasonable.
RESPONSE:
EXHIBIT A
NO. ___________________

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOGY, INC

TO: American Institute Of Toxicology, Inc, Defendant

Please take notice that request is hereby made by Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 196 of the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that Defendant produce or permit the undersigned attorney to

inspect and copy or reproduce the items hereinafter designated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

Within 50 days after service of these Requests for Production, you must serve a written

response to the undersigned attorneys including the items requested or stating with respect to

each request that an inspection and copying or reproduction will be permitted as requested.

In the event a request is objected to, please specifically state (a) the legal or factual basis

for the objection, and (b) the extent to which you refuse to comply with the request.

Pursuant to Rule 193.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must comply

with as much of the request to which the party has made no objection unless it is unreasonable

under the circumstances to do so before obtaining a ruling on the objection.
Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM K. BERENSON, P.C.

William K. Berenson
State Bar No. 02184500
1701 River Run, Suite 900
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Telephone: 817-885-8000
Facsimile: 817-335-4624
E-mail: bill@berensonlaw.com

By: _________________________
WILLIAM K. BERENSON
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. As used herein, the terms "you" and "your" shall mean American Institute Of
Toxicology, Inc and other natural persons or business or legal entities acting or purporting to act
for or on behalf of American Institute Of Toxicology, Inc, whether authorized to do so or not.

2. As used herein, the term "documents" shall mean all writings of every kind,
source and authorship, both originals and all nonidentical copies thereof, in your possession,
custody, or control, or known by you to exist, irrespective of whether the writing is one intended
for or transmitted internally by you, or intended for or transmitted to any other person or entity,
including without limitation any government agency, department, administrative, or private
entity or person. The term shall include handwritten, typewritten, printed, photocopied,
photographic, or recorded matter. It shall include communications in words, symbols, pictures,
sound recordings, films, tapes, and information stored in, or accessible through, computer or
other information storage or retrieval systems, together with the codes and/or programming
instructions and other materials necessary to understand and use such systems. For purposes of
illustration and not limitation, the term shall include: affidavits; agendas; agreements; analyses;
announcements; bills, statements, and other records of obligations and expenditures; books;
brochures; bulletins; calendars; canceled checks, vouchers, receipts and other records of
payments; charts or drawings; check registers; checkbooks; circulars; collateral files and
contents; contracts; corporate bylaws; corporate charters; correspondence; credit files and
contents; deeds of trust; deposit slips; diarie

Case Info

Judge

REDMOND, AIESHA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 01, 2019

Case Filing Date

July 01, 2019

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for JOSEPH PARKER, et al vs. ERWIN HERNANDEZ, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties