Preview
3. Plaintiff, Microcheck Solutions, Inc.’s answers and objection to Third Party Plaintiff's and
Counter Claimant, Mike Smith’s interrogatories, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “C.”
(aCAUSE NO. 2004-59790
MICROCHECK SYSTEMS, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AND EDUCATED SYSTEMS &
SOLUTIONS, INC. -
VS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ZIGROSSI & MURPHY, L.L.C. D/B/A
EDUCATED SOLUTIONS, FROST
BANK, CHRIS ZIGROSSI, SCOTT
MURPHY, MIKE SMITH, JIM HAYDEN,
ALEX CAMPBELL AND
JASON JABLECKI 125™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Or (Or COR CO? 002 LOD COD tO? CO? CO COD
MICROCHECK SOLUTIONS, INC.’S ANSWERS
AND OBJECTIONS TO THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF AND
COUNTER CLAIMANT, MIKE SMITH’S INTERROGATORIES
TO: Third Party and Counter Claimant Mike Smith, by and through his attorney of record,
Roy Murphy, III, Roy Murphy & Associates, 12527 Cypress No. Houston, Suite 110,
Cypress, Texas 77429
MicroCheck Solutions, Inc. (“MicroCheck”) serves these answers and objections to third
party plaintiff and counter claimant, Mike Smith’s interrogatories pursuant to Rules 192 and 196
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.Respectfully submitted,
SHEEHY, SERPE & WARE, P.
By:
Christopher D. DeMeo
State Bar No. 00796456
R. Edward Perkins
State Bar No. 15790410
2500 Two Houston Center
909 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77010-1003
Telephone: (713) 951-1000
Facsimile: (713) 951-1199
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Microcheck Solutions, Inc. and Educated Systems
& Solutions, Inc. and third-party defendant/counter
plaintiff, John D. Manning
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to all
counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the [4th day of November,
2007.
Christopher D. DeMeo
1201766_1.DOCINTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every erson you have sent a copy, of
the letter dated October 9, 2007, addressed to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union
High School District 213.
ANSWER: None other than those shown as addressees and as being copied on the letter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every corporation, school district or
business you have sent a copy of the letter dated October 9, 2007 to Steven Adolph,
Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213.
ANSWER: Tempe Union High School District
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every individual that you have shared
the information with in your letter dated October 9, 2007, to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of
Tempe Union High School District 213.
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the
term “shared.”
Subject to without waiving this objection, please see answer to Interrogatory
No. 1.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every individual, corporation or
business or school district you have supplied a copy of Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition and
Application for Injunctive Relief, other than the litigant’s parties and lawyers associated with this
litigation.
ANSWER: Tempe Union High School District.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Please state the name of every person whether a lawyer or non-lawyer, who advised you or
assisted you in preparing or constructing the letter of October 9, 2007, which you sent to Steven
Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213.~ a
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory because on its face it seeks
information protected by the attorney client privilege. MicroCheck further
objects to the interrogatory because it seeks information which is neither
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Please state whether or not Christopher DeMeo was aware of your plans to send the October 9,
2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213, prior to
the time it was sent.
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory because on its face it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Please state whether or not Stanley Nix was aware of your plans to send the October 9, 2007,
letter to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213, prior to the
time it was sent.
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory because on its face it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
On Page 2 of your letter to Steven Adolph, dated October 9, 2007, Para. 3, you stated, “We feel
compelled to inform you that in November 2006, the 125" Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas, entered an order of Temporary Injunction against Mike Smith, CMS Technology,
Scott Murphy, and MiChoice Technology Systems, Inc. from using Microcheck Systems
software or source code illegally. This case is currently set for trial this month for the purpose of
obtaining a permanent injunction and damages as are set out in our attached complaint.”
Please state why you felt compelled to inform Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union
High School District 213, about this information and what you hoped to accomplish.
ANSWER: In order to prevent further injustice from occurring.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
In your letter of October 9, 2007, on Page 2, Para. 5, you state, “Mr. Isaac is the court appointed
expert witness who has identified that as much as 90% of MicroCheck’s source code is contained
in the software of MiChoice.
-4-Please state why you told Mr. Adolph that Tony Isaac was a court appointed expert, what you
rely upon in making that statement, and isn’t this an out and out complete untruth?
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this question for reason that it is inflammatory,
argumentative, and misleading.
Subject to said objection and without waiving same, Tony Isaac was
approved by both parties to satisfy a court order to appoint a mutually
agreeable expert to review the source codes being used by both parties and
was to be paid by both parties. By way of further answer, please see
discovery responses and testimony developed in the case; namely, Mr. Isaac’s
conclusion that MiChoice is using source code of which 90% or more is
copied from MicroCheck.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
In the same paragraph set forth above, i.e., Para. 5 of the October 9, 2007, letter to Steven
Adolph, you state that Isaac has identified 90% of MicroCheck’s source code.” That has not
been an established fact at this point in time; it is merely an allegation and is contrary as to what
Isaac testified to at the time of the injunction hearing in November, 2006.
Why would you make this statement to Steven Adolph, appearing to be a statement of
established fact, when it is merely an allegation on the part of your expert, if not done for
purposes of vindictively trying to sabotage this deal. Please explain yourself.
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this question for reason that it is inflammatory,
argumentative, misleading, and calls for a narrative answer.
Subject to said objection and without waiving same, please see discovery
responses and testimony developed in the case; namely, Mr. Isaac’s
conclusion after further review that MiChoice is using source code of which
90% or more is copied from MicroCheck.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
In your October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Para. 5, you further make the statement that, “It
has been admitted that MiChoice Technology’s agents took software from the office of
Microcheck Systems, Inc. illegally in 2004.” Please state what evidence in detail you relied
upon in making that statement to Mr. Adolph.
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this question for reason that it is inflammatory,
argumentative, and misleading. MicroCheck further objects because the
interrogatory is an attempt to get it to marshal all its evidence in response to
-5-~ ~
written discovery in violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subject to said objection and without waiving same, the sworn testimony,
witness statements, and admissions of Scott Murphy.
INTERROGATORY NO, 12:
In your October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Page 2, Para. 6, you state, “We would request
that Tempe Union High School District #213 not participate in any illegal activity to aid Mike
Smith and MiChoice Technology, Inc. in violating the court’s order for using Microcheck
software and source code without the express written authorization of Microcheck.”
Please state in detail what illegal activity you are suggesting in this letter that Tempe Union High
School #213 would engage in by completing the sale to MiChoice Technology, Inc. or what
software of Microcheck they would be using without the express written consent of Microcheck.
ANSWER: MicroCheck objects because the interrogatory is an attempt to get it to
marshal all its evidence in response to written discovery in violation of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subject to said objection without waiving same, the illegal activity of
unauthorized use of MicroCheck’s software and source code, tortious
interference with business relationships, and unfair competition. By way of
further answer, please see discovery responses and testimony developed in
the case; namely, that MiChoice is using source code of which 90% or more
is copied from MicroCheck.
Preview
3. Plaintiff, Microcheck Solutions, Inc.’s answers and objection to Third Party Plaintiff's and Counter Claimant, Mike Smith’s interrogatories, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “C.” (aCAUSE NO. 2004-59790 MICROCHECK SYSTEMS, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AND EDUCATED SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS, INC. - VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ZIGROSSI & MURPHY, L.L.C. D/B/A EDUCATED SOLUTIONS, FROST BANK, CHRIS ZIGROSSI, SCOTT MURPHY, MIKE SMITH, JIM HAYDEN, ALEX CAMPBELL AND JASON JABLECKI 125™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT Or (Or COR CO? 002 LOD COD tO? CO? CO COD MICROCHECK SOLUTIONS, INC.’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER CLAIMANT, MIKE SMITH’S INTERROGATORIES TO: Third Party and Counter Claimant Mike Smith, by and through his attorney of record, Roy Murphy, III, Roy Murphy & Associates, 12527 Cypress No. Houston, Suite 110, Cypress, Texas 77429 MicroCheck Solutions, Inc. (“MicroCheck”) serves these answers and objections to third party plaintiff and counter claimant, Mike Smith’s interrogatories pursuant to Rules 192 and 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.Respectfully submitted, SHEEHY, SERPE & WARE, P. By: Christopher D. DeMeo State Bar No. 00796456 R. Edward Perkins State Bar No. 15790410 2500 Two Houston Center 909 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77010-1003 Telephone: (713) 951-1000 Facsimile: (713) 951-1199 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Microcheck Solutions, Inc. and Educated Systems & Solutions, Inc. and third-party defendant/counter plaintiff, John D. Manning CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the [4th day of November, 2007. Christopher D. DeMeo 1201766_1.DOCINTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every erson you have sent a copy, of the letter dated October 9, 2007, addressed to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213. ANSWER: None other than those shown as addressees and as being copied on the letter. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every corporation, school district or business you have sent a copy of the letter dated October 9, 2007 to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213. ANSWER: Tempe Union High School District INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every individual that you have shared the information with in your letter dated October 9, 2007, to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213. ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the term “shared.” Subject to without waiving this objection, please see answer to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of every individual, corporation or business or school district you have supplied a copy of Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief, other than the litigant’s parties and lawyers associated with this litigation. ANSWER: Tempe Union High School District. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state the name of every person whether a lawyer or non-lawyer, who advised you or assisted you in preparing or constructing the letter of October 9, 2007, which you sent to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213.~ a ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory because on its face it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege. MicroCheck further objects to the interrogatory because it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please state whether or not Christopher DeMeo was aware of your plans to send the October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213, prior to the time it was sent. ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory because on its face it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state whether or not Stanley Nix was aware of your plans to send the October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213, prior to the time it was sent. ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this interrogatory because on its face it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: On Page 2 of your letter to Steven Adolph, dated October 9, 2007, Para. 3, you stated, “We feel compelled to inform you that in November 2006, the 125" Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, entered an order of Temporary Injunction against Mike Smith, CMS Technology, Scott Murphy, and MiChoice Technology Systems, Inc. from using Microcheck Systems software or source code illegally. This case is currently set for trial this month for the purpose of obtaining a permanent injunction and damages as are set out in our attached complaint.” Please state why you felt compelled to inform Steven Adolph, Superintendent of Tempe Union High School District 213, about this information and what you hoped to accomplish. ANSWER: In order to prevent further injustice from occurring. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: In your letter of October 9, 2007, on Page 2, Para. 5, you state, “Mr. Isaac is the court appointed expert witness who has identified that as much as 90% of MicroCheck’s source code is contained in the software of MiChoice. -4-Please state why you told Mr. Adolph that Tony Isaac was a court appointed expert, what you rely upon in making that statement, and isn’t this an out and out complete untruth? ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this question for reason that it is inflammatory, argumentative, and misleading. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, Tony Isaac was approved by both parties to satisfy a court order to appoint a mutually agreeable expert to review the source codes being used by both parties and was to be paid by both parties. By way of further answer, please see discovery responses and testimony developed in the case; namely, Mr. Isaac’s conclusion that MiChoice is using source code of which 90% or more is copied from MicroCheck. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: In the same paragraph set forth above, i.e., Para. 5 of the October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, you state that Isaac has identified 90% of MicroCheck’s source code.” That has not been an established fact at this point in time; it is merely an allegation and is contrary as to what Isaac testified to at the time of the injunction hearing in November, 2006. Why would you make this statement to Steven Adolph, appearing to be a statement of established fact, when it is merely an allegation on the part of your expert, if not done for purposes of vindictively trying to sabotage this deal. Please explain yourself. ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this question for reason that it is inflammatory, argumentative, misleading, and calls for a narrative answer. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, please see discovery responses and testimony developed in the case; namely, Mr. Isaac’s conclusion after further review that MiChoice is using source code of which 90% or more is copied from MicroCheck. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: In your October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Para. 5, you further make the statement that, “It has been admitted that MiChoice Technology’s agents took software from the office of Microcheck Systems, Inc. illegally in 2004.” Please state what evidence in detail you relied upon in making that statement to Mr. Adolph. ANSWER: MicroCheck objects to this question for reason that it is inflammatory, argumentative, and misleading. MicroCheck further objects because the interrogatory is an attempt to get it to marshal all its evidence in response to -5-~ ~ written discovery in violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, the sworn testimony, witness statements, and admissions of Scott Murphy. INTERROGATORY NO, 12: In your October 9, 2007, letter to Steven Adolph, Page 2, Para. 6, you state, “We would request that Tempe Union High School District #213 not participate in any illegal activity to aid Mike Smith and MiChoice Technology, Inc. in violating the court’s order for using Microcheck software and source code without the express written authorization of Microcheck.” Please state in detail what illegal activity you are suggesting in this letter that Tempe Union High School #213 would engage in by completing the sale to MiChoice Technology, Inc. or what software of Microcheck they would be using without the express written consent of Microcheck. ANSWER: MicroCheck objects because the interrogatory is an attempt to get it to marshal all its evidence in response to written discovery in violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to said objection without waiving same, the illegal activity of unauthorized use of MicroCheck’s software and source code, tortious interference with business relationships, and unfair competition. By way of further answer, please see discovery responses and testimony developed in the case; namely, that MiChoice is using source code of which 90% or more is copied from MicroCheck.