Motion-Secondary: MUGDOCK TAVERN INVESTMENTS, et al vs. CAT SEATTLE LLC, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CAUSE NO. DC-12-12887

                  MUGDOCK TAVERN INVESTMENTS                                 §   IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                  and DUFFY I, LP,                                           §
                                                                             §
                           Plaintiffs,                                       §
                                                                             §
                  v.                                                         §
                                                                             §
                  CAT SEATTLE, LLC, ASCEND                                   §
                  HEALTH CORPORATION, and                                    §
                  RICHARD KRESCH, Individually,                              §
                                                                             §   DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
                           Defendants and Counter-                           §
                           Plaintiffs,                                       §
                                                                             §
                  v.                                                         §
                                                                             §
                  DUFFY I, LP and JAMES P.                                   §
                  GRAHAM,                                                    §
                                                                             §
                           Counter-Defendants.                               §
                                                                             §   134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                  ______________________________________________________________________________

                                                    ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
                  ______________________________________________________________________________


                           On    October    14,   2013,   the   Court    considered    Defendants’      Motion     to  Compel     (the

                  “Motion”), and, after considering the Motion, the parties’ pleadings, briefing, and the arguments

                  of counsel, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED as specified in this Order.

                           It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

                                    1.   Plaintiffs’  objections    to  Interrogatory     No.   4  of  Defendants’      First  Set  of

                                         Written    Discovery     are   OVERRULED;          and    Plaintiffs  shall   answer    same

                                         pursuant to Rule 197.2(c) within twelve (12) business days of the entry of this

                                         Order;
                                    2.   Plaintiffs shall fully comply with       their obligations under Texas Rule of Civil

                                         Procedure     194,   specifically    Rule   194.2(d)     and   Rule   194.2(e);    provided,

                                         however,     that   Plaintiffs   may    disclose   persons     under   Rule    194.2(e),    as

                                         appropriate, under the protective order with Attorneys’ Eyes Only protection,

                                         within twelve (12) business days of the entry of this Order;

                                    3.   Counter-Defendant         James      Graham,       individually      and     as    corporate

                                         representative for the Plaintiffs, shall sit for deposition again within thirty (30)

                                         business days of the entry of this Order, and he shall provide testimony about

                                         the   sources    of  information     (i.e.,  persons    and/or   documents),      under    the

                                         protective    order   with    Attorneys’     Eyes   Only     protection,   concerning      the

                                         underlying     allegations   and   issues   in  suit.   Deposition     testimony    shall  be

                                         limited to this topic.

                                    All  other   issues   raised   in  the  Motion    were    not  presented    and   are   expressly

                           reserved,   subject   to Counsel    for  the  parties  attempting    to  resolve   those  issues   without

                           Court intervention.

                           SO ORDERED.


                                                                                 ____________________________________
                                                                                 Presiding Judge