Preview
FILED
8/27/2021 4:45 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Cassandra Walker DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907
PK RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
Plaintiffs,
Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY
Defendants. 101st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COMES NOW PK Restaurant Group, LLC and BNG Management Group, LLC
(“Plaintiffs”), Plaintiffs in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and file this, their Supplement to
Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I
ies)
EXHIBITS
1) On August 6, 2021, Defendants served a 27-page packet of purported responses to the
requests for production and answers to the interrogatories.!
2) On August 6, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel identifying the
deficiencies and requesting timely amendment.” Defendants’ counsel failed to respond
3) On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a second email to Defendants’ counsel
containing the motion to compel and again asking for amendment.’ Defendants counsel failed to
respond.
! The packet is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
2 A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
3 A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
Supplement to Motion to Compel - Page 1 of 3
i.
SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS
1) It is now August 27, 2021. Defendants’ counsel has yet to email Plaintiffs’ counsel or
amend any single portion of the discovery responses. Therefore, they are presented to the
Court for determination.
1.
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion
to compel, order Defendants to amend all Defendants’ discovery responses and fully respond to
all of the requests, fully answer all the interrogatories, provide a verification that complies with
the rules, produce all responsive documents, and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs
are justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 528-8400 Telephone
(214) 528-8402 Facsimile
By: /s/Jordan Whiddon
TAILIM SONG
State Bar No. 00792845
tsong@tailimsong.com
JORDAN WHIDDON
State Bar No. 24093350
jwhiddon@tailimsong.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Supplement to Motion to Compel - Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was forwarded to all
counsel of record on this 27th day of August, 2021.
/s/ Jordan Whiddon
Jordan Whiddon, Esq.
Supplement to Motion to Compel - Page 3 of 3
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907
PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
Plaintiffs,
Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY
Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS
TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, through counsel.
Please find Defendants’ Original Responses to Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for
Production to Defendants.
By: /s/ William Chu
William Chu
State Bar No. 04241000
wmehulaw@aol.com
THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
Telephone: (972) 392-9888
Facsimile: (972) 392-9889
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record
on 8/5/2021.
/s/ William Chu
EXHIBIT A
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 1 of9
BEGIN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 1: Any written contracts you have had with either of Plaintiffs within the past
two (2) years.
RESPONSE: Defendants objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to what two year
period is being referred to within this request for production, it is not reasonably specific if two
years refers to when this discovery request was sent or within the past two years of when Plaintiff's
lawsuit was filed.
Defendants additionally object that the request for “Any” contract necessarily encompasses
documents that by their definition are not related to events or breach of contract claim(s) made
basis to Plaintiffs’ claims in this Matter and is therefore overly board and not reasonably likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any.
REQUEST_NO. 2: All communications, emails, phone messages, text messages, and
correspondences, in electronic and physical formats, evidencing communications between you and
Plaintiffs within the past two (2) years. This request requires that screenshots be taken.
RESPONSE: Defendants objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to what two-year
period is being referred to within this request for production, it is not reasonably specific if two
years refers to when this discovery request was sent or within the past two years of when Plaintiff’ s
lawsuit was filed.
Defendants further object to Plaintiff's demand for specific medium “requires that screenshots be
taken” and is not within the scope of the rules of discovery for Plaintiffs to make such a demand.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any.
REQUEST NO. 3: All communications, emails, phone messages, text messages, and
correspondences, in electronic and physical formats, evidencing communications between you and
anyone relating to or concerning the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, or the Carrollton
Property. This request requires that screenshots be taken.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that “anyone related to or concerning the » is vague and
ambiguous. The request is not reasonably clear enough to discern if Plaintiffs are asking for the
“anyone” person be related or concerning the properties or if Plaintiffs are asking that the subject
matter of the communication is “related to or concerning.”
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 2 of 9
Defendants further object that “evidencing communications” is vague and ambiguous because it is
unclear if Plaintiffs are requesting communications themselves or metadata which would evidence
the existence of said communications.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any.
REQUEST NO. 4: All invoices, purchase orders, subcontractor agreements, payments, and
other documents memorializing any work performed by subcontractors at your direction on any of
the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, or the Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to “other documents” as vague and ambiguous because it fails
to identify the type or nature of the specific document being sought rather than just something that
could be deemed some sort of memorialization.
Defendants further objects that “at your direction” is also vague and ambiguous because it is
unclear if Plaintiffs seek work performed by a “subcontractor” or a subcontractor hired by
Defendants to perform work, at your direction is also vague as to whether if it is referring to a hired
or contracted subcontractor or just anyone on a job site listening to direction by a Defendant or
one of its agents.
Subjects to this objection, to be supplemented if any.
REQUEST NO. 5: All mechanics or materialmen’s liens you filed on the Dallas Property, the
Irving Property, or the Carrollton Property, including all notices of intent to file liens and all notices
liens have been filed.
RESPONSE: To be supplemented, if any.
REQUEST NO. 6: All permits that you acquired, pulled, or used for construction on the Dallas
Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that any permits “acquired, pulled, or used” are equally available
for request through an open records request to the respective cities where the job sites are located.
REQUEST NO. 7: All inspection notes, green tags, red tags, or communications regarding any
inspection of the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to the request for “all inspection notes” because such a term is
vague and ambiguous on its face and its not reasonably clear as to what is being sought.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented, if any.
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 3 of 9
REQUEST NO. 8: A list of subcontractors you used on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or
Carrollton Property, if one was not provided with your required disclosures.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to Plaintiffs request to produce a list of persons that would not
already otherwise exist but for the request for production.
Defendants object to the legal conclusion exhibited by the statement “if one was not provided with
your required disclosures.”
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any.
REQUEST NO. 9: All documents evidencing any calculations you performed regarding
expected costs and profits from the construction work done on the Dallas Property, Irving Property,
or Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to “all documents evidencing” as it is vague and ambiguous
because it provides no scope as to time period, it fails to specify any type or title of the document
being sought, but provides only a vague reference to it “evidencing calculations,” which is vague
in and of itself.
REQUEST NO. 10: All documents evidencing any change orders to any of the construction
work performed on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to “all documents evidencing” as being vague on its face. This is
particularly so because Plaintiffs chose not to request the very document that the request
contemplates by its name, a change order.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any.
REQUEST NO. 11: Your attorneys’ fees agreement or engagement agreement with your lawyer
in this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendants objects and asserts privileges as this request is privileged as both
attorney-client communications and work product privilege.!
Defendants further object that Plaintiffs request for this document is beyond the scope of the issues
in controversy in this litigation and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
' Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for
Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding
privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their
number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an
objection to such requests for production.
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 4 of 9
REQUEST NO. 12: All attorneys’ fee statements showing the attorneys’ fees you’
ve incurred in
this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendants objects and asserts privileges as this request is privileged as both
attorney-client communications and work product privilege.”
Defendants further object that Plaintiffs request for this document is beyond the scope of the issues
in controversy in this litigation and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
REQUEST NO. 13: Any licenses or certifications you have regarding construction, including
but not limited to, any diplomas, certificates, or other documentation regarding your fitness to
perform work as a contractor.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request is harassing and not reasonably likely to lead the
discovery of admissible evidence, and beyond the scope of the pleadings.
Defendants further object to the specific “other documents regarding” is vague and ambiguous
because it fails to identify the type or title of such documents being sought and forces Defendants
to guess what would or would not illustrate fitness.
REQUEST NO. 14: A copy of the license of each licensed individual you used on any of the
Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request is vague and ambiguous because it fails to even
specify which or what (of many) licenses that may exist in this work.
Defendants further object that such a broad request as this would be unduly prejudicial to obtain a
copy of each and every license that each alleged person had or didn’t have.
Defendants further object that encompassing things, like a Driver’s License, would be such things
as not reasonably likely to lead the admissible evidence.
REQUEST NO. 15: All documents regarding any criminal charges or criminal investigation
filed against you for stealing the signs off the Carrollton Property or Irving Property.
? Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for
Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding
privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their
number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an
objection to such requests for production.
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 5 of9
RESPONSE: Defendants objects that this request is harassing and abusive and not a proper
discovery request under the rules because it is vailed and unethical threat of possible criminal
reprisal that Plaintiffs are attempting or may be attempting.
Defendants would further object that any documents by any law enforcement agencies would be
equally available pursuant to a freedom of information act request by the Plaintiff.
Defendants further object that “all documents regarding” is vague and ambiguous because it is not
specific enough to identify what specific documents Plaintiff seek in the request, it gives no
reference to a title or type, or from any such source or sources.
REQUEST NO. 16: All releases of lien regarding the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or
Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request is overall broad, not reasonably likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, and vague because it fails to specify if it asking for any
“releases of liens” that concern this lawsuit, that were executed by any Defendant, or within a
specific time period. Objectively speaking, Plaintiffs’ discovery request asks Defendants to
produce every single “release of lien” that has ever existed on the above three referenced
properties, which is objectionable.
REQUEST NO. 17: Any recorded or written statements made by you related to this Lawsuit,
the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, the Carrollton Property, or any contract with Plaintiffs.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request encompasses attorney-client communications
and is therefore privileged.?
Defendants object that this request is vague and ambiguous because “related to” is a vague and
ambiguous term. The term itself is subject to interpretation by attorneys and provides no actual
objective means of evaluation likes others (i.e. “talks about,” “discusses,” “alludes to”) to
identifying the responsive documents without into marshaling evidence (see next objection).
Furthermore, things in this world can be both directly and indirectly related to one another which
makes “related to” a precarious term.
Defendants object that Plaintiffs request asks Defendants to marshal all of its evidence because it
functionally asks Defendants to give Plaintiffs everything they have, without a limitation even a
limitation as to time, that an attorney could argue is “related to” this Lawsuit and the properties,
and contracts.
> Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for
Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding
privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their
number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an
objection to such requests for production.
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 6 of 9
REQUEST NO. 18: All relevant documents containing names of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts who are expected to be called to testify as witnesses in this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendants objects that the modifier “relevant” is vague and ambiguous because it
places a judgment value on the purported “documents,” which is already vague and ambiguous
itself (see next objection) and forces the Defendants to determine what is relevant, whereas
requests for production of documents are meant to request the production of an identifiable
document to go and be searched for, rather than seek to interpret the propounder’s viewpoint of
relevancy. Furthermore, relevant here may be and likely is being used as an attempt to somehow
mask an already overly broad discovery request through clever wordplay. This applies to both
“relevant documents” and “relevant facts” used in this request.
Defendants further object that a request for “who are expected to be called to testify” is, in and of
itself, an invasion into the attorney-client communication and attorney work product because it
conditions the entire request on a decision to call or not call a person to testify.
REQUEST NO. 19: All documents, reports, or tangible things to be used by Plaintiff as exhibits
during the trial of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request for production is improper under the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure as not a permitted form of discovery.
Defendants object that this request invades the purview of the Court to order an exchange of
exhibits prior to trial.
Defendants further object and assert privilege of attorney-work product. Prior to the introduction
of evidence at trial, pre-trial, or the point that this Court orders an exchange of exhibits, then all of
the above is attorney work product, attorney trial strategy, and is privileged.*
REQUEST NO. 20: All photographs and/or videos you have of the allegedly defective work done
on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to the “of allegedly defective work” as vague and ambiguous
because Defendants are not making such a claim.
Defendants further object that this discovery request is improper because to respond to it
specifically would be conceding what will likely be a contested issue at trial and being used for an
improper purpose under the rules.
4 Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for
Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding
privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their
number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an
objection to such requests for production.
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 7 of 9
Subject to this objection, as written, no responsive documents.
REQUEST NO.21: To the extent not produced in answer to any of the above requests, all audio
recording or transcripts of any kind in your possession that relate, in whole or in part, to the events
that are the subject of this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendants object that this is request for production is abusive and not a permissible
discovery request because it is intentionally overly broad rather than specific and narrow.
Defendants object that this request is marshalling of evidence because it literally requests just
everything else you got related to any part of any of the events of this lawsuit. Defendants hereby
incorporate by reference its object to “relate” as a term for this same reason. Furthermore, “events”
is unspecific and subject to interpretation even with the modifier “this Lawsuit” because what
could or could not be considered an event that is related to this lawsuit is likely a subject of dispute
and not reasonably specific enough to provide guidance as to what is being sought. For these same
reasons, Defendants object that the terms “regarding the events that are the subject of this lawsuit”
is not sufficiently definitive enough to properly identify the events that Plaintiffs are referring to.
Essentially, this discovery request functionally seeks to request just everything else related that
hasn’t already been produced.
REQUEST NO. 22: To the extent not produced in answer to any of the above requests, all
nonprivileged notes relating to any meetings, communications, or conversation regarding the
events that are the subject of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the characterization of “answer” as these are not
interrogatives, these are requests for production and therefore are not questions to be answered but
discovery requests to be responded to as there being responsive or no responsive documents but
still subject to objection.
Defendants object that this is request for production is abusive and not a permissible discovery
request because it is intentionally overly broad rather than specific and narrow.
Defendants object that this request is marshalling of evidence because it literally requests just
everything else you got related to any part of any of the events of this lawsuit. Defendants hereby
incorporate by reference its object to “relate” and “regar« 2 as a term for this same reason.
Furthermore, “events” is unspecific and subject to interpretation even with the modifier “this
Lawsuit” because what could or could not be considered an event that is related to this lawsuit is
likely a subject of dispute and not reasonably specific enough to provide guidance as to what is
being sought. For these same reasons, Defendants object that the terms “regarding the events that
are the subject of this lawsuit” is not sufficiently definitive enough to properly identify the events
that Plaintiffs are referring to.
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 8 of 9
Essentially, this discovery request functionally seeks to request just everything else related that
hasn’t already been produced.
REQUEST NO. 23: All documents showing payments you received from Plaintiffs.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects that “all documents” is vague and ambiguous and not reasonably
specific enough. Defendants further incorporate by reference its prior briefing on the precarious
use of the generic term “documents” rather than specifying.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented, if any.
END RESPONSES
Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 9 of 9
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907
PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
Plaintiffs,
Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY
Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GIANT BLUE’S ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GIANT BLUE, INC.
TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, through counsel.
Please find Giant Blue’s Original Responses to Plaintiff BNG’s First Set of
Interrogatories to Cho.
By: /s/ William Chu
William Chu
State Bar No. 04241000
wmchulaw@aol.com
THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
Telephone: (972) 392-9888
Facsimile: (972) 392-9889
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record
on 8/5/2021.
/s/ William Chu
Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue
Page 1 of 6
BEGIN RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the full name of each person providing some or all of the
information in answering these interrogatories including his or her current residence and business
address, current residence and business telephone number, date of birth, last four numbers of the
social security number and last three numbers of his or her Texas driver’s license number.
ANSWER: To be Supplemented.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the material (most important) terms of any contract
you have with either of the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the date of formation, the
payment terms, who was present when it was agreed, whether the contract was oral or written, and
if written who signed on behalf of each party.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this request calls for a legal conclusion as to what the most
important terms of any contract are. Defendant also objects for the same reason as being asked to
identify what the material terms to a contract are.
Defendant further objects that this is not an appropriate interrogatory under the Rules because it is
asking for statements and propositions of law and is beyond the basic request for general
information.
Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it does not specify which
contract it is seeking the specific information regarding.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please outline the basis for your stoppage of work at the Dallas
Property, the Irving Property, and the Carrollton Property, including the date(s) you stopped work,
and what terms you provided to Plaintiffs to resume work at each property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects, to the extent necessary, that Plaintiff's interrogatory is predicated
(as being true) on facts or issues that might ultimately be in dispute and therefore objects to the
extent necessary so as perverse any issues of waiver by answering this question without objections.
Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in
interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request
for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said
defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, to be supplemented.
Ido not speak for other co-defendants.
Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue
Page 2 of6
INTERROGATORY NO. 3/4]: Please identify by name, address, and telephone number all
subcontractors you used on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking subcontractors that were used at all three alleged properties and not
otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in
Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect
on their face because of the definition of /awsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas
under a different Cause Number and Case Style.
To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of
other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 45]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all
payments made to you by Plaintiffs related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton
Property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking payment information as to all three alleged properties and not otherwise
and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3,
above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face
because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a
different Cause Number and Case Style.
To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of
other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5j6]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all
payments you made to any subcontractors related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and
Carrollton Property.
Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue
Page 3 of 6
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking information about payments made to subcontractors that worked at all three
alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly
(when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories
(omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a
lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style.
To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of
other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6[7]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all
payments you made for any materials you used related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and
Carrollton Property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking information about purchases of materials used specifically at all three of the
alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when
intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted
herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit
in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style.
To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of
other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
Ido not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7/8]: How did you come to get the construction jobs on the Dallas
Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property? When answering this interrogatory, please
outline how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your experience and performance
history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs were about the work to be done on each job.
ANSWER: To the extent necessary Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on
behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its
Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue
Page 4 of 6
individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they
should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Defendant objects that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the
scope of seeking a the general factual and legal basis of information because it asks Defendant to
draft in the narrative the entire story of “how did you come to get the construction jobs on” the
properties.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 6 as being improper under the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure because it is not required as such. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs Instruction
No. 6 as being an improperly formatted request for production, if argued to be as such.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8/9]: Have you placed any liens on the Dallas Property, Irving
Property, or[‘] Carrollton Property? If so, please outline the date you served the notice of intent
to file lien, the date you filed the lien, the amount claimed on each lien, and the date you provided
notice to Plaintiffs of each lien.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other
Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
Ido not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9/10]: Please explain why you, Tozee, and/or Jimmy Cho took the
signs off the buildings at the Carrollton Property and Irving Property? When answering this
interrogatory, please state the date you, Giant Blue, and/or Jimmy Cho removed the signs, who
individually took the signs, and why the signs were taken.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other
Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
' In further support of Defendant's objections in Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (using correct numbering because Plaintiff's
interrogatories double count Rog No. 3), Plaintiff is specifically using the disjunctive rather than the conjunctive,
which demonstrates Plaintiff's intentional use of the two. Furthermore, Plaintiff uses the disjunctive specifically in
interrogatory No. 11 (correct numbering) and the “and/or” in Interrogatory No. 10 (correct numbering).
Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue
Page 5 of 6
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10{11]: Please identify all of your employees that worked on the
Dallas Property, Carrollton Property, or Irving Property, by name, address, and phone number.
ANSWER: To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on
behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its
individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they
should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11/12]: If you contend you substantially performed under any of the
contracts related to the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, and the Carrollton Property, please
explain and described how you substantially performed?
ANSWER: Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other
Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual
capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be
directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from.
Defendant objects that this request seeks more than a general factual or legal basis statement is
required under interrogatories under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subject to this objection, to be supplemented.
I do not speak for other co-defendants.
END RESPONSES
Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue
Page 6 of 6
CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907
PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
Plaintiffs,
V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY
Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT CHO’S ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO JIMMY CHO
TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, through counsel.
Please find Cho’s Original Responses to Plaintiff BNG’s First Set of Interrogatories to
Cho.
By: /s/ William Chu
William Chu
State Bar No. 04241000
wmchulaw@aol.com
THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
Telephone: (972) 392-9888
Facsimile: (972) 392-9889
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record
on 8/5/2021.
/s/ William Chu
Cho’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Jimmy Cho
Page 1 of 6
BEGIN RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify your full name, your current residence and business
address, current residence and business telephone number, date of birth, last four numbers of your
social security number and last three numbers of your Texas driver’s license number.
ANSWER: To be supplemented.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the material (most important) terms of any contract
you have with either of the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the date of formation, the
payment terms, who was present when it was agreed, whether the contract was oral or written, and
if written who signed on behalf of each party.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this request calls for a legal conclusion as to what the most
important terms of any contract are. Defendant also objects for the same reason as being asked to
identify what the material terms to a contract are.
Defendant further objects that this is not an appropriate interrogatory under the Rules because it is
asking for statements and propositions of law and is beyond the basic request for general
information.
Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it does not specify which
contract it is seeking the specific information regarding.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please outline the basis for Defendants’ stoppage of work at the
Dallas Property, the Irving Property, and the Carrollton Property, including the date(s) you stopped
work, and what terms you provided to Plaintiffs to resume work at each property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects, to the extent necessary, that Plaintiff's interrogatory is predicated
(as being true) on facts or issues that might ultimately be in dispute and therefore objects to the
extent necessary so as perverse any issues of waiver by answering this question without objections.
Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in
interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him in his individual capacity. Such request for
information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant
that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, I did not.
I do not speak for my co-defendants.
Cho’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Jimmy Cho
Page 2 of 6
INTERROGATORY NO. 3/4]: Please identify by name, address, and telephone number all
subcontractors you or Defendants used on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton
Property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking subcontractors that were used at all three alleged properties and not
otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in
Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect
on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas
under a different Cause Number and Case Style.
Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in
interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him in his individual capacity. Such request for
information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant
that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, I did not.
Ido not speak for my co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4J5]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all
payments made to you or Defendants by Plaintiffs related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property,
and Carrollton Property.
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking payment information as to all three alleged properties and not otherwise
and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3,
above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face
because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a
different Cause Number and Case Style.
Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in
interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him in his individual capacity. Such request for
information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant
that the information is being sought from.
Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, I did not.
I do not speak for my co-defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5/6]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all
payments you or Defendants made to any subcontractors related to the Dallas Property, Irving
Property, and Carrollton Property.
Cho’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Jimmy Cho
Page 3 of 6
ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears
to specify it is seeking information about payments made to subcontractors that worked at all three
alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly
(when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories
(omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of /awsuit used as being a
lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style.
Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in
interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him
Preview
FILED 8/27/2021 4:45 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Cassandra Walker DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907 PK RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC Plaintiffs, Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants. 101st JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY COMES NOW PK Restaurant Group, LLC and BNG Management Group, LLC (“Plaintiffs”), Plaintiffs in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and file this, their Supplement to Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I ies) EXHIBITS 1) On August 6, 2021, Defendants served a 27-page packet of purported responses to the requests for production and answers to the interrogatories.! 2) On August 6, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel identifying the deficiencies and requesting timely amendment.” Defendants’ counsel failed to respond 3) On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a second email to Defendants’ counsel containing the motion to compel and again asking for amendment.’ Defendants counsel failed to respond. ! The packet is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 2 A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 3 A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” Supplement to Motion to Compel - Page 1 of 3 i. SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS 1) It is now August 27, 2021. Defendants’ counsel has yet to email Plaintiffs’ counsel or amend any single portion of the discovery responses. Therefore, they are presented to the Court for determination. 1. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion to compel, order Defendants to amend all Defendants’ discovery responses and fully respond to all of the requests, fully answer all the interrogatories, provide a verification that complies with the rules, produce all responsive documents, and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM 8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480 Dallas, Texas 75251 (214) 528-8400 Telephone (214) 528-8402 Facsimile By: /s/Jordan Whiddon TAILIM SONG State Bar No. 00792845 tsong@tailimsong.com JORDAN WHIDDON State Bar No. 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Supplement to Motion to Compel - Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was forwarded to all counsel of record on this 27th day of August, 2021. /s/ Jordan Whiddon Jordan Whiddon, Esq. Supplement to Motion to Compel - Page 3 of 3 CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907 PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC Plaintiffs, Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, through counsel. Please find Defendants’ Original Responses to Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production to Defendants. By: /s/ William Chu William Chu State Bar No. 04241000 wmehulaw@aol.com THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU 4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008 Dallas, Texas 75244 Telephone: (972) 392-9888 Facsimile: (972) 392-9889 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record on 8/5/2021. /s/ William Chu EXHIBIT A Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 1 of9 BEGIN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: Any written contracts you have had with either of Plaintiffs within the past two (2) years. RESPONSE: Defendants objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to what two year period is being referred to within this request for production, it is not reasonably specific if two years refers to when this discovery request was sent or within the past two years of when Plaintiff's lawsuit was filed. Defendants additionally object that the request for “Any” contract necessarily encompasses documents that by their definition are not related to events or breach of contract claim(s) made basis to Plaintiffs’ claims in this Matter and is therefore overly board and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any. REQUEST_NO. 2: All communications, emails, phone messages, text messages, and correspondences, in electronic and physical formats, evidencing communications between you and Plaintiffs within the past two (2) years. This request requires that screenshots be taken. RESPONSE: Defendants objects that this request is vague and ambiguous as to what two-year period is being referred to within this request for production, it is not reasonably specific if two years refers to when this discovery request was sent or within the past two years of when Plaintiff’ s lawsuit was filed. Defendants further object to Plaintiff's demand for specific medium “requires that screenshots be taken” and is not within the scope of the rules of discovery for Plaintiffs to make such a demand. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any. REQUEST NO. 3: All communications, emails, phone messages, text messages, and correspondences, in electronic and physical formats, evidencing communications between you and anyone relating to or concerning the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, or the Carrollton Property. This request requires that screenshots be taken. RESPONSE: Defendants object that “anyone related to or concerning the » is vague and ambiguous. The request is not reasonably clear enough to discern if Plaintiffs are asking for the “anyone” person be related or concerning the properties or if Plaintiffs are asking that the subject matter of the communication is “related to or concerning.” Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 2 of 9 Defendants further object that “evidencing communications” is vague and ambiguous because it is unclear if Plaintiffs are requesting communications themselves or metadata which would evidence the existence of said communications. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any. REQUEST NO. 4: All invoices, purchase orders, subcontractor agreements, payments, and other documents memorializing any work performed by subcontractors at your direction on any of the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, or the Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object to “other documents” as vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the type or nature of the specific document being sought rather than just something that could be deemed some sort of memorialization. Defendants further objects that “at your direction” is also vague and ambiguous because it is unclear if Plaintiffs seek work performed by a “subcontractor” or a subcontractor hired by Defendants to perform work, at your direction is also vague as to whether if it is referring to a hired or contracted subcontractor or just anyone on a job site listening to direction by a Defendant or one of its agents. Subjects to this objection, to be supplemented if any. REQUEST NO. 5: All mechanics or materialmen’s liens you filed on the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, or the Carrollton Property, including all notices of intent to file liens and all notices liens have been filed. RESPONSE: To be supplemented, if any. REQUEST NO. 6: All permits that you acquired, pulled, or used for construction on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object that any permits “acquired, pulled, or used” are equally available for request through an open records request to the respective cities where the job sites are located. REQUEST NO. 7: All inspection notes, green tags, red tags, or communications regarding any inspection of the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object to the request for “all inspection notes” because such a term is vague and ambiguous on its face and its not reasonably clear as to what is being sought. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented, if any. Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 3 of 9 REQUEST NO. 8: A list of subcontractors you used on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property, if one was not provided with your required disclosures. RESPONSE: Defendants object to Plaintiffs request to produce a list of persons that would not already otherwise exist but for the request for production. Defendants object to the legal conclusion exhibited by the statement “if one was not provided with your required disclosures.” Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any. REQUEST NO. 9: All documents evidencing any calculations you performed regarding expected costs and profits from the construction work done on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object to “all documents evidencing” as it is vague and ambiguous because it provides no scope as to time period, it fails to specify any type or title of the document being sought, but provides only a vague reference to it “evidencing calculations,” which is vague in and of itself. REQUEST NO. 10: All documents evidencing any change orders to any of the construction work performed on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to “all documents evidencing” as being vague on its face. This is particularly so because Plaintiffs chose not to request the very document that the request contemplates by its name, a change order. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented if any. REQUEST NO. 11: Your attorneys’ fees agreement or engagement agreement with your lawyer in this Lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendants objects and asserts privileges as this request is privileged as both attorney-client communications and work product privilege.! Defendants further object that Plaintiffs request for this document is beyond the scope of the issues in controversy in this litigation and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ' Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an objection to such requests for production. Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 4 of 9 REQUEST NO. 12: All attorneys’ fee statements showing the attorneys’ fees you’ ve incurred in this Lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendants objects and asserts privileges as this request is privileged as both attorney-client communications and work product privilege.” Defendants further object that Plaintiffs request for this document is beyond the scope of the issues in controversy in this litigation and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 13: Any licenses or certifications you have regarding construction, including but not limited to, any diplomas, certificates, or other documentation regarding your fitness to perform work as a contractor. RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request is harassing and not reasonably likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence, and beyond the scope of the pleadings. Defendants further object to the specific “other documents regarding” is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the type or title of such documents being sought and forces Defendants to guess what would or would not illustrate fitness. REQUEST NO. 14: A copy of the license of each licensed individual you used on any of the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request is vague and ambiguous because it fails to even specify which or what (of many) licenses that may exist in this work. Defendants further object that such a broad request as this would be unduly prejudicial to obtain a copy of each and every license that each alleged person had or didn’t have. Defendants further object that encompassing things, like a Driver’s License, would be such things as not reasonably likely to lead the admissible evidence. REQUEST NO. 15: All documents regarding any criminal charges or criminal investigation filed against you for stealing the signs off the Carrollton Property or Irving Property. ? Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an objection to such requests for production. Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 5 of9 RESPONSE: Defendants objects that this request is harassing and abusive and not a proper discovery request under the rules because it is vailed and unethical threat of possible criminal reprisal that Plaintiffs are attempting or may be attempting. Defendants would further object that any documents by any law enforcement agencies would be equally available pursuant to a freedom of information act request by the Plaintiff. Defendants further object that “all documents regarding” is vague and ambiguous because it is not specific enough to identify what specific documents Plaintiff seek in the request, it gives no reference to a title or type, or from any such source or sources. REQUEST NO. 16: All releases of lien regarding the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request is overall broad, not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and vague because it fails to specify if it asking for any “releases of liens” that concern this lawsuit, that were executed by any Defendant, or within a specific time period. Objectively speaking, Plaintiffs’ discovery request asks Defendants to produce every single “release of lien” that has ever existed on the above three referenced properties, which is objectionable. REQUEST NO. 17: Any recorded or written statements made by you related to this Lawsuit, the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, the Carrollton Property, or any contract with Plaintiffs. RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request encompasses attorney-client communications and is therefore privileged.? Defendants object that this request is vague and ambiguous because “related to” is a vague and ambiguous term. The term itself is subject to interpretation by attorneys and provides no actual objective means of evaluation likes others (i.e. “talks about,” “discusses,” “alludes to”) to identifying the responsive documents without into marshaling evidence (see next objection). Furthermore, things in this world can be both directly and indirectly related to one another which makes “related to” a precarious term. Defendants object that Plaintiffs request asks Defendants to marshal all of its evidence because it functionally asks Defendants to give Plaintiffs everything they have, without a limitation even a limitation as to time, that an attorney could argue is “related to” this Lawsuit and the properties, and contracts. > Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an objection to such requests for production. Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 6 of 9 REQUEST NO. 18: All relevant documents containing names of persons having knowledge of relevant facts who are expected to be called to testify as witnesses in this Lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendants objects that the modifier “relevant” is vague and ambiguous because it places a judgment value on the purported “documents,” which is already vague and ambiguous itself (see next objection) and forces the Defendants to determine what is relevant, whereas requests for production of documents are meant to request the production of an identifiable document to go and be searched for, rather than seek to interpret the propounder’s viewpoint of relevancy. Furthermore, relevant here may be and likely is being used as an attempt to somehow mask an already overly broad discovery request through clever wordplay. This applies to both “relevant documents” and “relevant facts” used in this request. Defendants further object that a request for “who are expected to be called to testify” is, in and of itself, an invasion into the attorney-client communication and attorney work product because it conditions the entire request on a decision to call or not call a person to testify. REQUEST NO. 19: All documents, reports, or tangible things to be used by Plaintiff as exhibits during the trial of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendants object that this request for production is improper under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as not a permitted form of discovery. Defendants object that this request invades the purview of the Court to order an exchange of exhibits prior to trial. Defendants further object and assert privilege of attorney-work product. Prior to the introduction of evidence at trial, pre-trial, or the point that this Court orders an exchange of exhibits, then all of the above is attorney work product, attorney trial strategy, and is privileged.* REQUEST NO. 20: All photographs and/or videos you have of the allegedly defective work done on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or Carrollton Property. RESPONSE: Defendants object to the “of allegedly defective work” as vague and ambiguous because Defendants are not making such a claim. Defendants further object that this discovery request is improper because to respond to it specifically would be conceding what will likely be a contested issue at trial and being used for an improper purpose under the rules. 4 Plaintiffs in this request for production do not specifically exclude privileged documents like they do in Request for Production No. 22. Defendants further object to the purported “instruction” by Plaintiffs in these requests regarding privileged because (1) these are not interrogatories (unless they are, in which case Plaintiffs may have exceeded their number of allotted interrogatories) and (2) the additional information is not required under the rules when stating an objection to such requests for production. Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 7 of 9 Subject to this objection, as written, no responsive documents. REQUEST NO.21: To the extent not produced in answer to any of the above requests, all audio recording or transcripts of any kind in your possession that relate, in whole or in part, to the events that are the subject of this Lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendants object that this is request for production is abusive and not a permissible discovery request because it is intentionally overly broad rather than specific and narrow. Defendants object that this request is marshalling of evidence because it literally requests just everything else you got related to any part of any of the events of this lawsuit. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference its object to “relate” as a term for this same reason. Furthermore, “events” is unspecific and subject to interpretation even with the modifier “this Lawsuit” because what could or could not be considered an event that is related to this lawsuit is likely a subject of dispute and not reasonably specific enough to provide guidance as to what is being sought. For these same reasons, Defendants object that the terms “regarding the events that are the subject of this lawsuit” is not sufficiently definitive enough to properly identify the events that Plaintiffs are referring to. Essentially, this discovery request functionally seeks to request just everything else related that hasn’t already been produced. REQUEST NO. 22: To the extent not produced in answer to any of the above requests, all nonprivileged notes relating to any meetings, communications, or conversation regarding the events that are the subject of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the characterization of “answer” as these are not interrogatives, these are requests for production and therefore are not questions to be answered but discovery requests to be responded to as there being responsive or no responsive documents but still subject to objection. Defendants object that this is request for production is abusive and not a permissible discovery request because it is intentionally overly broad rather than specific and narrow. Defendants object that this request is marshalling of evidence because it literally requests just everything else you got related to any part of any of the events of this lawsuit. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference its object to “relate” and “regar« 2 as a term for this same reason. Furthermore, “events” is unspecific and subject to interpretation even with the modifier “this Lawsuit” because what could or could not be considered an event that is related to this lawsuit is likely a subject of dispute and not reasonably specific enough to provide guidance as to what is being sought. For these same reasons, Defendants object that the terms “regarding the events that are the subject of this lawsuit” is not sufficiently definitive enough to properly identify the events that Plaintiffs are referring to. Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 8 of 9 Essentially, this discovery request functionally seeks to request just everything else related that hasn’t already been produced. REQUEST NO. 23: All documents showing payments you received from Plaintiffs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects that “all documents” is vague and ambiguous and not reasonably specific enough. Defendants further incorporate by reference its prior briefing on the precarious use of the generic term “documents” rather than specifying. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented, if any. END RESPONSES Defendants’ ORIGINAL response Plaintiff BNG’s First Requests for Production Page 9 of 9 CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907 PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC Plaintiffs, Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT GIANT BLUE’S ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GIANT BLUE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, through counsel. Please find Giant Blue’s Original Responses to Plaintiff BNG’s First Set of Interrogatories to Cho. By: /s/ William Chu William Chu State Bar No. 04241000 wmchulaw@aol.com THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU 4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008 Dallas, Texas 75244 Telephone: (972) 392-9888 Facsimile: (972) 392-9889 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record on 8/5/2021. /s/ William Chu Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue Page 1 of 6 BEGIN RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the full name of each person providing some or all of the information in answering these interrogatories including his or her current residence and business address, current residence and business telephone number, date of birth, last four numbers of the social security number and last three numbers of his or her Texas driver’s license number. ANSWER: To be Supplemented. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the material (most important) terms of any contract you have with either of the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the date of formation, the payment terms, who was present when it was agreed, whether the contract was oral or written, and if written who signed on behalf of each party. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this request calls for a legal conclusion as to what the most important terms of any contract are. Defendant also objects for the same reason as being asked to identify what the material terms to a contract are. Defendant further objects that this is not an appropriate interrogatory under the Rules because it is asking for statements and propositions of law and is beyond the basic request for general information. Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it does not specify which contract it is seeking the specific information regarding. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please outline the basis for your stoppage of work at the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, and the Carrollton Property, including the date(s) you stopped work, and what terms you provided to Plaintiffs to resume work at each property. ANSWER: Defendant objects, to the extent necessary, that Plaintiff's interrogatory is predicated (as being true) on facts or issues that might ultimately be in dispute and therefore objects to the extent necessary so as perverse any issues of waiver by answering this question without objections. Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, to be supplemented. Ido not speak for other co-defendants. Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue Page 2 of6 INTERROGATORY NO. 3/4]: Please identify by name, address, and telephone number all subcontractors you used on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking subcontractors that were used at all three alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of /awsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 45]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all payments made to you by Plaintiffs related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking payment information as to all three alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 5j6]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all payments you made to any subcontractors related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue Page 3 of 6 ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking information about payments made to subcontractors that worked at all three alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 6[7]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all payments you made for any materials you used related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking information about purchases of materials used specifically at all three of the alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. Ido not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 7/8]: How did you come to get the construction jobs on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property? When answering this interrogatory, please outline how you met Plaintiffs, what you told Plaintiffs about your experience and performance history, and what discussions you had with Plaintiffs were about the work to be done on each job. ANSWER: To the extent necessary Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue Page 4 of 6 individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Defendant objects that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of seeking a the general factual and legal basis of information because it asks Defendant to draft in the narrative the entire story of “how did you come to get the construction jobs on” the properties. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Instruction No. 6 as being improper under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure because it is not required as such. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs Instruction No. 6 as being an improperly formatted request for production, if argued to be as such. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 8/9]: Have you placed any liens on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, or[‘] Carrollton Property? If so, please outline the date you served the notice of intent to file lien, the date you filed the lien, the amount claimed on each lien, and the date you provided notice to Plaintiffs of each lien. ANSWER: Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. Ido not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 9/10]: Please explain why you, Tozee, and/or Jimmy Cho took the signs off the buildings at the Carrollton Property and Irving Property? When answering this interrogatory, please state the date you, Giant Blue, and/or Jimmy Cho removed the signs, who individually took the signs, and why the signs were taken. ANSWER: Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual ' In further support of Defendant's objections in Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (using correct numbering because Plaintiff's interrogatories double count Rog No. 3), Plaintiff is specifically using the disjunctive rather than the conjunctive, which demonstrates Plaintiff's intentional use of the two. Furthermore, Plaintiff uses the disjunctive specifically in interrogatory No. 11 (correct numbering) and the “and/or” in Interrogatory No. 10 (correct numbering). Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue Page 5 of 6 capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 10{11]: Please identify all of your employees that worked on the Dallas Property, Carrollton Property, or Irving Property, by name, address, and phone number. ANSWER: To the extent necessary, Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 11/12]: If you contend you substantially performed under any of the contracts related to the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, and the Carrollton Property, please explain and described how you substantially performed? ANSWER: Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Giant Blue when sent to it in its individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Defendant objects that this request seeks more than a general factual or legal basis statement is required under interrogatories under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to this objection, to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants. END RESPONSES Blue’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Giant Blue Page 6 of 6 CAUSE NO. DC-21-04907 PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC Plaintiffs, V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants. 101ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT CHO’S ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO JIMMY CHO TO PLAINTIFF BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, through counsel. Please find Cho’s Original Responses to Plaintiff BNG’s First Set of Interrogatories to Cho. By: /s/ William Chu William Chu State Bar No. 04241000 wmchulaw@aol.com THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CHU 4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008 Dallas, Texas 75244 Telephone: (972) 392-9888 Facsimile: (972) 392-9889 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the above and foregoing document was provided to all parties and attorneys of record on 8/5/2021. /s/ William Chu Cho’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Jimmy Cho Page 1 of 6 BEGIN RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify your full name, your current residence and business address, current residence and business telephone number, date of birth, last four numbers of your social security number and last three numbers of your Texas driver’s license number. ANSWER: To be supplemented. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the material (most important) terms of any contract you have with either of the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the date of formation, the payment terms, who was present when it was agreed, whether the contract was oral or written, and if written who signed on behalf of each party. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this request calls for a legal conclusion as to what the most important terms of any contract are. Defendant also objects for the same reason as being asked to identify what the material terms to a contract are. Defendant further objects that this is not an appropriate interrogatory under the Rules because it is asking for statements and propositions of law and is beyond the basic request for general information. Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it does not specify which contract it is seeking the specific information regarding. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please outline the basis for Defendants’ stoppage of work at the Dallas Property, the Irving Property, and the Carrollton Property, including the date(s) you stopped work, and what terms you provided to Plaintiffs to resume work at each property. ANSWER: Defendant objects, to the extent necessary, that Plaintiff's interrogatory is predicated (as being true) on facts or issues that might ultimately be in dispute and therefore objects to the extent necessary so as perverse any issues of waiver by answering this question without objections. Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him in his individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, I did not. I do not speak for my co-defendants. Cho’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Jimmy Cho Page 2 of 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 3/4]: Please identify by name, address, and telephone number all subcontractors you or Defendants used on the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking subcontractors that were used at all three alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him in his individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, I did not. Ido not speak for my co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 4J5]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all payments made to you or Defendants by Plaintiffs related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking payment information as to all three alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of Jawsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him in his individual capacity. Such request for information are not appropriate and not proper when they should be directed to the said defendant that the information is being sought from. Subject to this objection, in my individual capacity, I did not. I do not speak for my co-defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 5/6]: Please identify by date, method of tender, and amount, all payments you or Defendants made to any subcontractors related to the Dallas Property, Irving Property, and Carrollton Property. Cho’s Original Response to BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to Jimmy Cho Page 3 of 6 ANSWER: Defendant objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous because it appears to specify it is seeking information about payments made to subcontractors that worked at all three alleged properties and not otherwise and because Plaintiff refers to “each property” correctly (when intending to do so) in Rog No. 3, above. Also, the definitions in these interrogatories (omitted herein) appear incorrect on their face because of the definition of /awsuit used as being a lawsuit in Collin County, Texas under a different Cause Number and Case Style. Defendant objects to being requested to make statements on behalf of other Defendants in interrogatories before Defendant Cho when sent to him