Motion for Attorney Fees in DENISE JONES vs. BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE LTD| Trellis.Law

On March 01, 2013 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Jones, Denise, and Brentwood Healthcare Ltd, for OTHER CONTRACT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
8/21/2014 3:22:58 PM
GARY FITZSIMMONS
DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSE NO. DC-J3-02573

DENISE JONES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. §
§ 134111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE, LTD, §
alkla BRENTWOOD HEALTH CARE §
SKILLED NURSING AND §
REHABILITATION §
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

COMES NOW, Brentwood Healthcare, Ltd. ("Defendant"), Defendant in the above-styled

cause, and files this Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Prosecution of

Retaliation Claim, and in support thereof shows:

Objection to Attornev Fees Because Not Properlv Disclosed in Discoverv

Prior to trial, Defendant objected to Plaintiffs claim for recovery of attorney fees because

Plaintiff had failed to timely and properly respond to discovery requests regarding for the following

information:

Request No.3: All documents evidencing Plaintiffs claim for damages.

Request No. 13: All contracts, retainer agreements or fee agreements for the payment of
attorneys' fees and litigation costs between you and your attorneys for your attorneys'
representation of you in this lawsuit.

Request No. 14: All time entries, timesheets, computer printouts, invoices or bills generated
by your attorneys regarding this lawsuit. These documents may be redacted to prevent
disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications, but must reflect time spent and dollars
incurred.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 1
J:\Susan\8104.030 Jones, Denise\pJead\attomey fee _response.doc
Request No. 23: All documents including all tangible reports, maps, compilations of data,
or other materials sent to, reviewed by, or prepared by every expert you may call to
testify at trial by live or deposition testimony, which concern any aspect of this lawsuit.
See Ex. A - Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant's First Request for Production.

Plaintiffs Expert Designation also failed to provide any of the requested information. See Ex.

B- Plaintiffs Expert Designation. It failed to provide the general substances or the expert's opinions,

failed to provide a summary for the basis of the opinions, failed to provide documents reflecting and

supporting the opinions, failed to provide documents or data compilations reviewed or prepared by the

expert, and failed to provide a current resume or bibliography as required by Rule I 94.2(f) of the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Further, Plaintiff failed to provide any information at all in discovery, or any time prior to trial,

of the number of hours expended on the case, the attorneys' hourly rate, how the rate compared to rates

for similar work in Dallas, the amount of legal assistant time or hourly rate, or the amount of expenses.

It was only after the trialwas concluded that Plaintiff filed and served information relating

to the amount and calculation of attorneys' fees. Defendant contends this is untimely and Plaintiffs

evidence regarding attorneys' fees should be excluded because it was not timely disclosed in

discovery.

Rule I 93.6(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party who fails to make,

amend, or supplement a discovery response in a timely manner may not introduce in evidence the

material or inforn1ation that was not timely disclosed unless the court finds there was good cause or

the failure will not unfairly surprise or prejudice the other party. The purpose of discovery is to

prevent trial by ambush and also promote an assessment of the case and potential settlement.

By purposefully withholding information on attorney fees, Plaintiff has ambushed

Defendant for over $80,000. Plaintiff has the burden to prove reasonable fees and Plaintiff has the

burden to timely and appropriately respond to discovery seeking the amount of those fees and

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 2
J:\Susan\81 04.030 Jones, Denise\pJead\attomey feeJesponse.doc
documentation to support those fees. Plaintiff also. as the party seeking to offer the evidence at

issue, has the burden to establish good cause or lack of unfair prejudice. There is no rational reason,

reasonable explanation, or good cause for failing to provide the requested information. Plaintiff

should not now be rewarded for the surprise when Defendant made efforts to avoid surprise.

An appropriate remedy would be to exclude Plaintiff from presenting any evidence III

support of attorneys' fees that was not produced in discovery. See TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 193.6(a); see e.g., Comerica Bank-Texas v. Hamilton, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 3898 *9

(Tex. App. - Dallas July 28, 1997)(not designated for publication)(court excluded evidence on

attorney's fees because party failed to produce any documents regarding its claims for attorney's

fees); cf Tex. lv/un. League v. BlIms, 209 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2006, no

pet.)(holding that although party did not disclose attorney's internal records in response to request

for disclosure, party did provide, months before trial, expert affidavits that detailed the hours billed

to date, the rate, how the rate compared to other similar work, the legal assistant rate and hours, and

expenses incurred to date so there was no unfair surprise).

In this case, there has been no showing of good cause by Plaintiff as to why attorney fee

information was not provided prior to trial, and Defendant has been surprised and prejudiced by the

large amount of fees requested ($80,000 plus a multiplier of 2x) and now having only 13 days'

notice of hearing and time to prepare a response and objection.

II.

Objection to Conc1usorv Statement of Reasonable Hourlv Rates

Defendant objects to Mr. Lee's conclusory statement regarding the reasonableness of the

billing rates for Mr. Lee, Ms. Dixon, Ms. Artaza. Mr. Cohen, and Ms. Risovi. Mr. Lee states he

"researched the matter by obtaining information irom journals and other like employment-law

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 3
J:\Susan\81 04.030 Jones, Denise\plead\attorney I"eresponse.doc
professionals" but he did not produce any of the underlying journals or information that forms the

basis of his opinions.

III.

Objection to Attornev Fees Because No Contemporaneous Records Produced

Defendant objects to Plaintiffs application for attorneys' fees because no contemporaneous

billing records have been produced - and no fee agreement has been produced. Instead, Plaintiff

produced a spreadsheet created after the trial and recreated from memory. Or if the records were

created from a review of documents, those documents have not been provided and should have been

provided.

Further, the spreadsheet contains billing information from another lawyer, Joel Cohen, who

is not a member of Mr. Lee's firm. Mr. Cohen's records have not been provided nor has his fee

agreement been produced. Moreover, any information provided by Mr. Cohen is hearsay.

In order to avoid retroactively created and potentially exaggerated or inaccurate billing

sheets, the Texas Supreme Court stated in El Apple that when there is an expectation that the

lodestar method will be used to calculate fees, attorneys should document their time much as they

would for their own clients, that is, contemporaneous billing records or other documentation

recorded reasonably close to the time when work is performed. EI Apple J, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370

S.W.3d 757, 763 (Tex. 2012). This is because the lodstar method has been criticized for proving a

financial incentive for counsel to expend excessive time in unjustified work and for creating a

disincentive to early settlement. Id. at 762. To avoid these pitfalls, the trial court should obtain

sufficient infornlation to make a meaningful evaluation of the application for attorney's fees. 1d.

In this case, no contemporaneous billing documents have been provided to support the

opinions in Mr. Lee's affidavit and errors have been noted in the billing records making their

accuracy reasonably suspect.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Pagc4
J:\Susan\SI 04.030 Jones. Denise\plead\aUorney fee~response.doc
IV.
PIll in tiff hils Flliled to Segregllte Fees relllted to Sexulll Hllrnssment Clllim

Defendant objects to Plaintiff s application for attorneys' fees because Plaintiff bas failed to

segregate the time billed tor working on the sexual harassment claim - which Plaintiff non-suited

during directed verdict - from the retaliation claim.

The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a prevailing party must segregate

recoverable fees from unrecoverable fees. Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68, 69 (Tex. 2007)(per

curium). Mr. Lee has stated in his affidavit that "some time expended was not placed on [the

spreadsheet] because it did not involve the retaliation claim" but he does not state any specifics such

as what time was not included, billed by whom, and in what amount. Defendant is unable to

determine if a reasonable segregation took place without this missing information. Because there is

no evidence of the time that was segregated, Defendant contends no time was actually segregated

and all of the time requested by Plaintiff pertains to the entire case - including the unrecoverable

sexual harassment portion.

V.
Objection to Specific Entries

r 07/07112 - 01/28113 I ~efel.l~ant objec~s t.o, a.1Ientries by .Joel Col~en because h.e was'not--i
I IdentifIed by PlamtItf m any responses to dIscovery or dIsclosure or I
expert designation. Further, any entries regarding his time are hearsay
and speculation.
01128113 . Defendant objects to Cohen's entry for "Prepare for and attend
I mediation 8.0 hours" because the mediation only lasted approximately 2
. I hours. See Ex. C Affidavit of Louise Coffey .
01/28113 Defendant objects to Lee's entry "Review documentation provided by
Cohen; Conference with .Jones 1.4 hours" because it is duplicative of
I work alreadyperfornled by Cohen and billed for by Cohen.
I 02/28/13 Defendant objects to Risovi's entry "Revise and file petition 0.4 hours" I,
I because it is clerical.
03/28113 Defendant objects to Cohen's entry "Discussion about EEOC re: NRS
and update 0.2 hours" because it is vague and took place after his
transfer of the file.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 5
J:\Susan\81 04.030 Jones. Denise\plead\attorney fee_response. doc
07/01113 Defendant objects to Risovi's entry "Amend petition OA" because the
amendment was necessary because Plaintiff failed to properly plead
damages under Rule 47,
07/19113 Defendant objects to Artaza's entry "Review EEOC file 0.3 hours"
because it is duplicative.
, 12113113 Defendant objects to Risovi's entry "Draft and file Notice of Hearing 0.2
hours" because it is clerical.
02/04114 I Defendant objects to Dixon's entry "Prepare for depositions ofM.
I Sturgill and D. Hill 1.6 hours" because this time is duplicative of time
billed bv Lee.
I 07/07114 Defendant objects to Dixon's time entry "Work on exhibit list for trial
0.8 hours" because it is duplicative of time billed by Risovi and Lee.
07/27114 Defendant objects to Dixon's time entry "assist with other trial matters"
because it is val!ue and may be duplicative.
07/28/14 - 07/30114 Defendant objects to Dixon's time entries for trial attendance because it
is duplicative of time billed by Lee and Risovi.
I 08/01114 - 08/07114 Defendant objects to Risovi's time entries for preparing Attorney Fee
I Spreadsheet because this is clerical and should have been perfonned as a
, clerical matter by each timekeeper contemporaneously with the time
billed.
I 08/05114 Defendant objects to Cohen's time for "review attorney hours and
submit infonnation to Lee's office 1.0 hours" because this is clerical and
, should have been performed as a clerical matter by Cohen
I contemporaneously with time billed. Further it is hearsay and
speculative.

VI.

Response to Request for Multiplier of2

If the lodstar does not reflect a reasonable fee, then a multiplier adjusting the base lodstar up

or down may be applied, if necessary, to reach a reasonable fee in the case. Under El Apple,

"exceptional circumstances" may justify an enhancement, but there were no exceptional

circumstances in this case. The legal issues were not unique or novel; only six witnesses were

deposed; it took less than 10 hours to depose all 6 witnesses; the trial was very short with the

evidence taking only I day and I hour to present.

In 2013 after taking the case, Mr. Lee, Ms. Artaza, Ms. Risovi, and Ms. Dixon combined

spent portions of only 26 days working on this case. Only 2 days contained significant hours - that

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 6
J:\Susan\81 04.030 Jones, Denise\plead\atlomey fee_response.doc
by Mr. Lee when depositions were taken on October 22 and 23, 2013. In 2014, small portions of

only 7 days (ll.8 hours) were spent working on this case prior to July trial preparations. Clearly

this case did not preclude Mr. Lee from taking other cases. If it did, Plaintiff has failed to give any

specifics about what matters or how many matters Mr. Lee had to turn away.

The Rush Truck Centers v. Fitzgerald case, cited by Plaintiff as an example of a Dallas court

pennitting a 1.5 multiplier, is not at all similar to this case. In Rush, there was a claim by the

company against the employee on a note and a cross-complaint by the employee against the

company for retaliation. There were two cases on one. The employee was not successful on his

retaliation claim and the only damages that were awarded to him were attomey fees. Judge

Molberg found the time and labor to successfully prosecute the employee's claim was "significant"

and involved "multiple highly capable and experienced defense counsel" with "novel and difficult"

legal issues - two of which were of first impression in Texas.

There is none of that in this case. The claims were simple and straight-forward - not novel

or difficult. It did not require multiple lawyers. Plaintiff was successful on her claim and was

awarded back pay and compensatory damages. The case was not time-consuming for either firm.

There are no exceptional circumstances to justify an enhancement of fees in this case.

VII.

Objection to Costs

Defendant objects to Plaintiffs request for court costs because Plaintiff has not provided any

documentation supporting the amount of costs. Plaintiff has only produced a self-prepared

memorandum of court costs but has not provided any invoices or receipts that reflect the amount of

costs requested.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiffs Motion for Attomeys' Fees and Costs be

denied, and for such other relief to which Defendant may be justly entitled.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 7
J:ISusanl81 04.030 Jones, Delliselpieadlattorney fee_response.doc
Respectfully submitted,
STROMBERG STOCK, PLLC
By: lsi Susan J. Travis
Susan J. Travis
State Bar No. 20194750

8750 N. Central Expy., Suite 625
Dallas, TX 75231
(972) 458-5353 Telephone
(972) 861-5339 Fax
susan(cV,strombergstock.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE LTD.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
following counsel in the following manner this 21st day of August, 2014.

VIA E-SERVICE
Mr. Robert (Bobby) Lee
Lee & Braziel, LLP
1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
Dallas, Texas 75203
lsi Susan J. Travis
Susan 1. Travis

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Page 8
J:ISusanI8! 04.030 Jones, Deniselpleadlattorney feeJesponse.doc
AUG-l~-~013{MOH) 16:05 P.01S/027

CAUSE NO. DC-13-02573

DENISE JONES, § IN TIlE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ 134'h .)UDICIAL DISTRICT
BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE, LTD, §
a/kill BRENTWOOD BEALTHCARE §
SKILLED NURSING AND §
REHABILITATION§
§
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT'S FIRST REOURST FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Defendant, Brentwood Healthcare, LTD alkJa Brentwood Hca1thcare Skilled Nursing and
Rehabilitation, by and through their attorneys of record Susan J. Tmvis, of Stromberg
Stock, PLLe, located at Two Lincoln Center, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300, Dallas,
Texas 7524001.

Now comes Plaintiff Denise Jones and files these, Plaintiff's Responses and Objections
to Defendant Brentwood Healthcare, LTD alkJa Brentwood Hcaltheare Skilled Nursing and
Rehabilitation, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DocumenL~ responsive to these

requests will be provided for inspection and copying at the offices of Lee & Braziel, 1801 N.
Lamar, Suite 325, Dallas, Texas 75202, at a mutually convenient time. Please note: documents
and information pursuant to these requests have been withheld based on the attorney-client or
work-product privileges, pursuant to Tex. R. eiv. P. 193.3.

PLAINTIFF'S REsPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S
FmsTREQUGSTFORPRODUcnON EXHIBIT

Pc
AU6-lc-cOI3(MON) 16:05 P 0191007

REOUESTS FOR PRODUCfION

REOUEST NO.1: All documents supporting the claim that Defendant effectively tenninated
Plaintl:ffbased her complaint of sexual harassment.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff also
objects to this request to the extent it requites the Plaintiff to marshal all of her evidence in
response and/or seeks, a legal conclusion. Subject to, but without Waiving these objections, to the
extent this request sceks documents discussing the factual basis for Plaintiff'S claim that she was
tc:nninated because she made sexual harassment complaints, Plaintiff refers Defendant to
Plaintiff's bines·numbered docwnents #1-170 and 210.

REOUEST NO.2: All documents reflecting any communiCation between Plaintiff and
Defendant.

ReSPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to, but
without waiving these objections, to thc extent this request seeks written correspondence
between Plaintiff and Defendant during her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff refers
Defendant to the Certified EEOC file for responsive documentation.

REOUEST NO. ~: ',' All docuIllentsevideneing Plaintiffaclalmfbr,dllinaies;

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff also
,objcctsto this request to thc cxtent it seeks Ii legal conclusion or requires the Plaintiff to marsbal
all of her evidence in response. Plaintiff further objects to this request as premature in that
discovery has just begun and each responsive document cannot be determined. Subject to, but
without waiving ,these objections, Plaintiff objects to this request as premature in that Plaintiffs
damages are ongoing, and the exact amount cannot be ascertained at this time. Subject to, but
without waiving these objections, Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs First Amended Petition
for the damages sought, and 10 Plaintiff's disclosures for the method of calculating damages.
Specifically, plaintiff will scck all lost wages and benefits, including back pay and potentially
front pay (if reinstatement is not feasible). However, those amowlts cannot yet be calculated
because we do not have all of the necessary documentation as discovery has not been completed.
However, Plaintiff will provide W-2' s and paystubs, in her possession, from 2012 to present.
It is anticipated that Plaintiff will calculate lost wages by sublr.u:ting the amount Plaintiff
actually earned from the amount Plaintiff would have earned had she remained employed by
Defendant. Plaintiff has made elaims for compensatory, punitive and any other damages referred
to in Plaintiff's Fin.'t Amended Petition and Plaintiff will rely on the Court to make appropriate
determination as to the amount. The Court may scc the need for additional equitable or
injunctive relief. Plaintiff will also seek attomey fees and costs, with this amount being
presented to the Court pursuant to the Court's requirements and recommendations.

PI..AlN'fIFF'S REsPONSIlS AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S
FmsT REQuruITFOR PRODUCTIoN PAG62
AU6-12-2013(MON) 16: 05 P 021/027

REOUEST NO. lOi All documents relating to your attempts to obtain employment after your
cmploymem with Defendant ended, including, but not limited to, your employment applications,
resumes, curricula vitae, reference letters, correspondence, nole$, memoranda, and documClllS to or
from any prospective employers relating to job interviews, job applications, pre-employment tests,
offers of part-time or fuJI-time employment andlor rejections of applications for or offers of
employment. registration with any other employment agencies, telephone records and logs, job
search files or records, pay stubs and vouchers, and all other documents relating to your efforts, if
any, to obtain employment

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as the term "relating" is vague and ambiguous.
Plaintiff also objects to this request as it is overly broad and not relevant or reasonably calcuJated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, but without waiving these objections,
Plaintiff is currently conducting a search for responsive documents. In the event such documents
are located, they will be provided.

REOUEST NO. 11: All documents evidencing your employment or sources of income or
compensation after your employment with Defendant ended, including, but not limited to, your job
description, documents relating to your job title, job status, rate of pay, pay stubs and vouchers,
description of jobs held or work perfonned, employee handbooks and benefit statements of each
employer, and documents relating to offi.'IS
of insurance payments, health benefits, retirement
benefits. 401(k) plans, stock transfers, or other benefits to be paid for (in part or in whole) or
provided by the employcr(s), regardless of whether those benefits were actually obtained, and all
other documents relating to your gross interim earnings.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objccts to this request as the term "relating" is vague and ambiguous.
Plaintiff also objects to this 'request as it is overly broad and not relevant or reasonably calculated
to lead to tho discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, out witltout waiving these objeclions,
Plaintiff is not in possession of any non-privileged documents believed to be responsive.

REOUEST NO. 12:i\ll documents relating to your pursuit andlor receipt of unemployment
compensation or other governmental benefitS since your employment with Defendant ended,
including, but not limited to, benefit applications, elaim forms, benefit summaries, administrative
proceedings before appeal referees or appeal tribunals andlor court proceedings relating to sueh
benefits.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as the tenn "relating" is vague and ambiguous.
Plaintiff also objects to this request as it is overly broad and not relevant or reasonably calculnted
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence'. Subject to, but without waiving these objections,
Plaintiff will provide the Certified TWC file, (Plaintlffbates-mnnbered documents # 171-209).

: REQUEST NO. 13: cA1lcontracts, retainer agreements or fcc agreements forlbepaymenLof
attomeys' :(eesandlitigation costs between you and your attotneys for youranarncys'
representation ofyou in this lawsuit. . ' .' .. . .

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it seeks documents protected by the attomey-
client or work-product privileges. Plaintiff further objects to this request as being premature, as

Pl.I\JNTIFF'S REsPoNsEs AND OBJeCTIONS TO DeFENDANT'S
FIRST REQUEST FOit PROOUCTION PAoe4
AUG-le-eOI3(MON) 16:06 P OeC/Oe7

this information does not become relevant until such time as a determination is to be made on
fees, which will be determined by the Court Subjcct to, but without waiving these objections,
Plaintiff states that she has entered into a contingency fee agreement with her attorncy, and will
agree to provide a copy of the contract between Plaintiff and her attorney, with her motion for
attorneys' fees, if Defendant agrees that this contingency fee agreement warrants lodestar
considerations. .

REQUEST NO, 14: >A11 time erilrles,timesh~~jcomputer printouts, invoices or bills generated
by your attorne~regarding lids l!lwsuit. . These documents may be redacted to prevent disclosure of
attorney-client privileged comniunlClltions, but must reflect time spent and dollars incUItCd; •.•....

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objectS to this request as it seeks documents protected by the attorney-
client or work-product privileges. Plaintiff further objects to this request as being premature, as
this infoanation does not become relevant until such time as a determination is to be made on
fees, which will be deleonined by the Court Subject to, but without waiving these objections,
Plaintiff states that she has entered into a contingency fee agreement with her attorney, Qnd will
agree to provide a copy of the eontract between Plaintiff and her attorney, with her motion for
attorneys' fees, If Defendant agrees that this contingency fee agreement warrants lodestar
considerations.

REOUEST NO. 15: All documents relating to Plaintiff's separution of employment, including,
but not limited to, personnel docunlents, correspondence, memoranda, handwritten or typed
notes, payroll records, tape recordings, job descriptions, performance reviews, and documents
refJectingjob classification.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it isvague and ambiguous. Subject to, but
without waiving these objections, Plaintiff will produce a copy of any paystubs from Defendant
in her possession. Plaintiff also refers Defendant to Plaintiff bates-numbered documents 1·210
for documents, which may be responsive to this request.

REQUEST NO. 16: All documents relating to complaints of discrimination or retaliation made
against David King.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it isvague and ambiguous. Subject to, but
without waiving these objections, Plaintiff refers Derendant to bates-numbered documents #3-
170 and 210.

REQUEST NO. 17: Any notes, diary en1ries, memos, or similar documents concerning
Plaintiff's complaints that she was sexually harassed that were created prior to 1he date the
lawsuit was filed.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to, but
without waiving these objections, Plaintiff is currently conducting a search for non-privileged
responsive documents. In the event they are located., they will be provided.

1'lAINTIF1"S REsPoNsEs AND OBJECT10NS TO DIifCNDANT'S
FIRST REQUEST fOR. PRODUCTION PAGES
RUG-1t-t013(MOH) 1&: 0& P OtVOt7

provide information on expert witnesses in accordance with thc Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
and the scheduling order set forth by the Court.

REOUF..sTNO. 23: All (iocunicnts including tdltangible reports, maps, compilations of data,
or other materials sent to, reviewed by, or prepared by every cxpert you may ~all to testify at trial
.by live or deposition testimony, Which concern any aspect of this lawSuit.:·

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it is premature in that discovery has just begun
and Plaintiff has not yet designated her expert witnesses. Plaintiff also objects to this request as
it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, but without waiving thesc objections, Plaintiff will
provide information on expert witnesses in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
and thc scheduling order sct forth by the Court.

REOUEST NO. 24: All documents provided to, reviewed by, generated by, or prepared by
every expert used fOT consuJtation, even if it was generated or prcpared in anticipation of
litigation or for trial, if it forms the basis, either in whole or in part, of the opinions of an expert
who you may call to testify at trial through live or deposition testimony or if any testifying expert
has received documents from or talked to any consulting expert. This Request includes all
invoices or bills gencrated by said experts.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as it is premature in that discovery has just begun
and Plaintiff has not yct designated her expert witnesses. Plaintiff further objects to this request
as it is vague, anibiguous, overly broad unduly burdensome, and not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, but without waiving these
objections, Plalntiff will provide information on expert witnesses in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure and the scheduling order set forth by the Court.

REQUF..sT NO. 25: A copy of the resume Plaintiff sent or has been sending in response to
prospective employment positions.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff will produce a copy of her resume.

REOUF..sT NO. 26: All cover letters, applications, notes, lists, diaries or similar documentation
reflecting to whom Plaintlffhas applied or made inquiry for employment.

RESPONSE; Plaintiff objects to this request as the term "similar documentation" is vague and
ambigous. Subject to, but without waiving these objections, with respect to Plaintiff's attempts
to obtain employment following her termination by Defendant, Plaintiff Is currently conducting a
search for responsive documents. If such documents are located, they will be provided.

REQUEST NO. 27: All communications and documents by Plaintlff to the State of Texas
Rehabilitation Services and received by Plaintiff from the State of Texas Rehabilitation Services.

RESPONSE; Plaintiff objects to this request as it Is overly broad and not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, but without waiving these

PLAINTIFF'S REsPONSI!S AND OBJEcnONS TO l)BFIiND~'S
FIRST REQUBST FOR PRODUCTION PAGIl7
CAUSE NO. DC-13-02573

DENlSE JONES, § IN THE DISTRlCT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ 134 111 .JUDICIAL DISTRlCT
BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE, LTD, §
a/kla BRENTWOOD HEALTH CARE §
SKILLED NURSING AND §
REHABILITATION §
§
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT DESIGNATIONS:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Denise Jones and files this, her Designation of Expert

Witnesses and in support thereof states as follows:

Identity of Attorney Fcc Experts

The following persons may be used as trialto present evidence under the Texas

Rules of Evidence. These experts are expected to testify regarding the reasonableness of

the hourly fee charged by Plaintiff's Counsel and the nonnaJ hourly fees charged by

employment counsel with similar experience and/or board certifications:

A. Robert G. Lee
Lee & Braziel, LLP
1801 N. Lamar Street
Suite 325
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 749·1400
FAX (214) 749-1010

EXHIBIT

,~
Plaint!ff's Expert Designations

--=:---
Respectfully submitted,

:22~~C
Attorney in Charge

Case Info

Judge

TILLERY, DALE Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 21, 2014

Case Filing Date

March 01, 2013

County

Parties

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

Motion-Secondary: DENISE JONES vs. BRENTWOOD HEALTHCARE LTD

Preview

Case Info

Parties