Preview
CAUSE NO. 280123
ADRIAN GLIMANE IN THE COUNTY COURT
Plaintiff,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE
RESTAURANTS, INC. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S COMBINED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S PRE TRIAL MOTIONS
COMES NOW, Defendant Community Lighthouse Restaurants, Inc. (“Defendant” or
CLR”) and files this Combined Response to Plaintiff’s Pre Trial Motions and would respectfully
show as follows:
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
SURVEILLANCE VIDEOTAPES AND INVESTIGATIVE WITNESSES
Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude video surveillance which captures his client lying
about is medical condition is replete with lies, misrepresentations and omissions to this Court of
material facts. Plaintiff’s Motion also is apparently unable to articulate the legal standard
applicable or simple, direct statements as to the basis of their request to exclude. Further, Texas
law and the authority on point but not cited by Plaintiff requires Plaintiff’s Motion to be denied
Defense Counsel will attempt to correct all of Plaintiff’s errors as simply and straight forward as
possible:
Plaintiff Misled The Court As To The Timing Of Video Receipt and
Production. Plaintiff either accidentally or deliberately “misunderstands” the timing of the video
Plaintiff’s 8/10/2023 Motion to Exclude is duplicative of the relief sought in Plaintiff’s 6/20/2023 Motion to Strike,
and this Response is intended to address and respond to the relief sought in both of Plaintiff’s Motions.
surveillance and when it was required to be disclosed. First, Plaintiff claims on 5/26/2023
Defense Counsel already possessed the videos:
This is patently false and Plaintiff has no good faith basis to make this
representation to the Court.The videos were captured on 5/11/2023, less than 6 weeks before
trial was originally set. Defense Counsel first received the videos from its insurance
company’s adjuster on 6/12/2023 and is willing to offer to waive privilege limited to this one
email and only for the purposes of a pre trial hearing, or otherwise offer the email in camera for
consideration by the Court. The videos were provided to Plaintiff the very next day on
6/13/2023.
More importantly, Plaintiff obviously did not deem these videos important to his
case after these videos were produced, Plaintiff did not ask for a trial continuance or file a
Motion to Exclude – on the morning of trial Plaintiff instead announced ready for trial.
Plaintiff is not surprised or prejudiced by these videos. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.6
states a Party who fails to supplement a discovery response in a timely manner may not
introduce in evidence material that was not disclosed unless the Court finds (1) there was good
cause for the failure to timely make, amend or supplement the discovery response (2) the
failure to supplement the discovery response will not unfairly surprise or unfairly prejudice
the other parties.
Ex. 1 – 6/13/2023 email re video production
Timely Manner and Good Cause: The videos taken on 5/11/2023 were received
defense counsel on 6/12/2023 and produced the next day. Approximately 30 days from the
date they were taken (and within 1 day of the date they were received by defense counsel or the
Defendant) for supplementation is inherently a reasonable and in a “timely manner.” Further,
Defense Counsel had no personal knowledge of the company or the investigators doing the
surveillance until the day the videos were provided to Defendant and obviously could not have
disclosed them.
No Unfair Surprise or Unfair Prejudice: ince the videos were produced, and
regardless of their complete lack of relevance to this case, Plaintiff has taken the deposition of
both of the surveillance witnesses who took the videos AND the deposition of their supervisor
who resides in Arizona and did nothing but schedule the job, AND the deposition of the
surveillance company’s corporate representative located in Michigan who had even less
involvement.
The investigators (Munoz and Aronovich) were deposed on 7/28/2023. Their out
of state “supervisor Matt Sandoval and the company’s corporate representative Otto Cruz were
deposed on 8/3/2023. The identities and contact information for the investigators and their
company were formally disclosed on 7/3/2023, but the names and addresses for each witness
were included in their affidavits which were produced even earlier on 6/19/2023.
Despite knowing about these witnesses and their addresses for over 6 weeks
Plaintiff never attempted to serve Munoz and Aronovich with subpoenas, and Plaintiff only
attemptedto serve Sandoval and Cruz via email the day before their deposition.
Finally, and most importantly, Plaintiff did not discover any new evidence during
these recent depositions that surprised or prejudiced his case simply put, nothing about these
depositions or any information related to the same changes what the jury will see when
they watch the surveillance videos ese videos speak for themselves, and any issues or
explanations the Plaintiff deems necessary to attempt to distract from his client’s deception
goes to weight and not admissibility.
Thus, these videos were supplemented in a timely manner, good cause exists,
Plaintiff is not unfairly surprised or prejudiced, and these material, probative videos must be
allowed to be presented to the jury for fair and full consideration of the facts.
Defendant Does Not Control The Surveillance Witnesses: Plaintiff’s counsel
continues to misunderstand Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5 rotecting a witness from a harassing or
misleading question does not make that witness controlled by efendant for the purpose of
subpoena service per Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.3. Plaintiff relies on the fact Defense Counsel instructed
these unrepresented third party witnesses not to answer questions but fails to reveal to the
Court these questions were harassing and/or misleading and the witness was properly
instructed not to answer per Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5 states “an attorney may instruct a witness not to answer a
question during an oral deposition only if necessary to…protect a witness from an abusive
question or one which any answer would be misleading.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5(f). Nowhere in
the plain language of the Rule is that protectionlimited only to an attorney directly representing
the witness, and Plaintiff cites no authority that protecting a witness from a harassing and abusive
question confers special “control” status over said witness for the purposes of Tex. R. Civ. P.
199.3 and 199
IV.
The Surveillance Videos Were Not Materially Altered. Plaintiff claims the
videos were “altered and edited and other portions of the video are missing, making them
incomplete and unreliable.” Plaintiff conveniently does not make the Court aware the only
testimony as to the video being “altered” is that the audio was removed from the videos each
investigator provided to its company audio of the investigators in the car and that in no way,
shape or form captures anything spoken from the Plaintiff.
There is No “Missing Video” Which Portrays the Plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed
two out of state witnesses for the surveillance company Matt Sandoval and Otto Cruz. Neither
were present during the filming, and neither testified to any personal knowledge of the filming
of Plaintiff or the production of the videos. Despite literally having no personal knowledge as to
any relevant topic, Plaintiff’s counsel began their deposition at 9:15 am and finished at 6:08 pm
Plaintiff’s counsel spent almost 9 hours harassing two witnesses with NO personal
knowledge of the video creation. Plaintiff can only use speculative testimony from these two
witnesses, properly objected to, because when Plaintiff’s counsel deposed the two witnesses who
actually took these videos and actually have personal knowledge of these issues, he completely
failed to ask a single question or obtain any evidence that these witnesses altered or took
incomplete videos.
Speculation, harassment and misleading a witness to obtain testimony that is no
evidence there is missing video is unprofessional, unacceptable, and is not a legal ground to
exclude this video evidence.
Ex. 1 Sandoval Depo at 169:22 170:17.
All Investigators Were Properly Licensed, or Alternatively This Is Not
Grounds For Exclusion. Plaintiff fails to identify for the Court any legal basis, or any authority,
that because Mr. Aronovich believed he did not possess a valid investigator license when these
videos were taken, the videos must be excluded While Mr. Aronovich was under the impression
he did not have an individual license, the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed he had
a valid license at the time of the surveillance , and the same was confirmed by the testimony
of Otto Cruz . Relevant excerpts of his deposition are attached as Ex. 2.
Further, regardless of the allegations regarding the license, this misstated fact is
not grounds for exclusion. In civil cases, even illegally obtained evidence may be admissible at
trial. State Taylor, 721 S.W.2d 541, 551 (Tex.App. Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (“Evidence
illegally obtained is admissible in civil cases under the common law rule.” ); Sims Cosden Oil
& Chem. Co., 663 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
[C]ourts do not concern themselves with the method by which a party to a civil
suit secures evidence pertinent and material to the issues involved ... hence evidence which is
otherwise admissible may not be excluded because it has been illegally and wrongfully
obtained.”. And, generally, all relevant evidence that is not privileged is discoverable. TEX.R.
CIV. 192.3. Strategic Impact Corp., 214 S.W.3d 484, 488 (Tex. App.Houston [14th
Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Ex. 3 – Screenshots of Texas DPS.gov
Ex. 2 – Cruz Depo at 120:18 121:11; 126:7 12; 128:12 129:8.
VI.
Plaintiff’s remaining grounds lack merit, are not legal grounds for exclusion of
this evidence and will be addressed through oral argument, if necessary.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Defendant files this brief and response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Nos. 14
and 29 as follows:
Motion in Limine 14: Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 14 seeks to exclude any
argument or evidence disputing the reasonableness or necessity of Plaintiff’s medical treatment
and expenses on the grounds Defendant did not serve controverting affidavits. Plaintiff’s
requested is explicitly rejected by the Texas Supreme Court in In Re Allstate Indemnity: “The
claimant’s decision to file initial [18.001] affidavits may relieve her of the burden to adduce
expert trial testimony on reasonableness and necessity, but the opposing party’s failure to serve
a compliant counteraffidavit has impact on its ability to challenge reasonableness or necessity
at trial.” Allstate Indem. Co. 622 S.W.3d 870, 881 (Tex. 2021).
Motion in Limine No. 29: Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 29 seeks to exclude
evidence regarding what each medical provider might have accepted as reimbursement for said
procedures. Plaintiff cites no authority supporting this exclusion, and in fact recent
jurisprudence demonstrates just how relevant this evidence is for the jury to determine
what is truly a “reasonable” charge for the services provided. In 2021 the Texas Supreme
Court in In Re ExxonMobil Corp. declared evidence of a medical provider’s rates for private
insurers and public payers is relevant when considering the reasonableness of its chargemaster
rates, including when a party is challenging the reasonableness of rates supporting a claim for
personal injury damages. ExxonMobil Corp. 635 S.W.3d 631, 633 (Tex. 2021).
As the Supreme Court held, the jury is tasked with deciding what reasonable
amount would compensate the Plaintiff for his past injuries, including past medical expenses.
More than one number can be reasonable, and Defendant is entitled to present evidence of
Plaintiff’s providers’ inflated and exaggerated expenses so the jury can properly consider what a
reasonable amount for treatment would be.
PRAYER
Defendant asks the Court to DENY Plaintiff’s various Pre Trial Motions and for all other
relief to which Defendant may show themselves reasonably entitled to.
Respectfully submitted,
CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE,
WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, P.C.
By: /s/ R. Kyle Hawes
R. Kyle Hawes
State Bar No. 00796725
kyle.hawes@chamberlainlaw.com
Michael B. Feibus
State Bar No. 24087502
michael.feibus@chamberlainlaw.com
1200 Smith, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 658-1818
Telecopier: (713) 658-2553
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT COMMUNITY
LIGHTHOUSE RESTAURANTS, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served
via hand delivery, electronic submission, facsimile, U.S. Mail, and/or certified mail, return receipt
requested, on August 13, 2023, to the following:
Jordan A. Glaze
Josh Garrett
P.O. Box 1599
Gilmer, Texas 75644
Attorneys for Plaintiff Adrian Glimane
/s/ R. Kyle Hawes
R. Kyle Hawes
EXHIBIT
1
Page 1
·1· · · · · · · · · ·· CAUSE NO. 21-DCV-280123
· ··
·2· ·ADRIAN GLIMANE,· · · · · · ··) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·3· · · · · ·· Plaintiff,· · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·4· ·VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · ··) 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·5· ·COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE· · · · ·)
· · ·RESTAURANT, INC.,· · · · · ··)
·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
· · · · · · ·· Defendant.· · · · ··) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
·7· ·
· ··
·8· ·
· ··
·9· · · · · · ·· -----------------------------------
· ··
10· · · · · · · · ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
· ··
11· · · · · · · · · · · · MATTHEW SANDOVAL
· ··
12· · · · · · · · · · · ·· AUGUST 3, 2023
· ··
13· · · · · · · · · · · · · · VOLUME 1
· ··
14· · · · · · · · · · ·· (Reported Remotely)
· ··
15· · · · · · ·· -----------------------------------
· ··
16· ·
· ··
17· · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW SANDOVAL,
· ··
18· ·produced as a witness at the instance of the PLAINTIFF,
· ··
19· ·and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
· ··
20· ·numbered cause on the 3rd day of August, 2023, from
· ··
21· ·9:15 a.m. to 1:10 p.m., via Zoom videoconference, before
· ··
22· ·Terri Garcia, CSR in and for the State of Texas,
· ··
23· ·reported by machine shorthand, at Albuquerque,
· ··
24· ·New Mexico, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
· ··
25· ·Procedure.
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
8da89fa3-70d2-4be4-8df9-19386e11defe
Page 169
·1· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection, leading.
·2· · · ··A.··Yes.
·3· · · ··Q.··(BY MR. FEIBUS)··Do you get lots and lots and
·4· ·lots of videos from all of your surveillers where they
·5· ·could occasionally be small gaps?
·6· · · ··A.··Yes.
·7· · · ··Q.··Is that anything that stands out to you as a
·8· ·red flag?
·9· · · ··A.··No.
10· · · ··Q.··Does that ever stand out to you as something
11· ·where they're attempting to conceal evidence?
12· · · ··A.··No.
13· · · ··Q.··Okay.··This whole -- I think Mr. Hoover may be
14· ·under the impression that because audio is stripped of
15· ·these videos, that these vi- -- these -- these videos
16· ·have been altered.··Do you consider the removal of audio
17· ·from the video before it gets provided to the client, is
18· ·that destroying evidence?
19· · · ··A.··No.
20· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection, form; objection,
21· ·leading.
22· · · ··Q.··(BY MR. FEIBUS)··Now, if that audio contained
23· ·voices from the person being surveilled, that should be
24· ·included, right?
25· · · ··A.··Yes.
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
8da89fa3-70d2-4be4-8df9-19386e11defe
Page 170
·1· · · ··Q.··If the audio only included the audio of the
·2· ·person taking the video inside of a car, is that
·3· ·something that the client needs to see?
·4· · · ··A.··No.
·5· · · ··Q.··Is that something that provides any useful
·6· ·information whatsoever about the subject of the
·7· ·surveillance?
·8· · · ··A.··No.
·9· · · ··Q.··So do you have any criticisms of the fact that
10· ·you saw a video that had some audio, and then
11· ·ultimately, it went to the client without audio?
12· · · ··A.··I'm sorry, repeat the question.
13· · · ··Q.··Sure.··Do you have any criticisms of the fact
14· ·that there were some videos that started off with audio
15· ·of the car where the surveiller was in and that audio
16· ·got taken out before it went to the client?
17· · · ··A.··No.
18· · · ··Q.··We were looking at Defense Exhibit 89 and you
19· ·got showed, nine minutes in, there was a three-second
20· ·clip.··Do you remember that?
21· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection, form.
22· · · ··A.··Which day?
23· · · ··Q.··(BY MR. FEIBUS)··It -- it was the clip where
24· ·Mr. Hoover asked you, Do you see right when he's about
25· ·to lean over; do you remember that?
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
8da89fa3-70d2-4be4-8df9-19386e11defe
EXHIBIT
2
Page 1
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CAUSE NO. 21-DCV-280123
· · ··
·2· ··ADRIAN GLIMANE,· · · · · ··)· ··IN THE DISTRICT COURT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·3· · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·4· ··v.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· ··240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·5· ··COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE· · · ·)
· · ··RESTAURANT, INC.,· · · · ··)
·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · ·Defendant.· · · · · ··)· ··FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
·7· ··
· · ··
·8· ··
· · ··
·9· · · ··************************************************
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·VIDEOTAPED
10· ··
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF
11· ··
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·OTTO CRUZ,
12· · · · · · · · ··CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
· · · · · · · · · · ·COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS, LLC
13· ··
· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·AUGUST 3, 2023
14· ··
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·(Reported Remotely)
15· · · ··************************************************
· · ··
16· ··
· · ··
17· ··
· · ··
18· · · · · ·VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF OTTO CRUZ, produced
· · ··
19· ··as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiff, and duly
· · ··
20· ··sworn, was taken in the above-styled and -numbered cause
· · ··
21· ··on August 3, 2023, from 1:50 p.m. to 6:08 p.m., before
· · ··
22· ··Dana Taylor, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported
· · ··
23· ··via Zoom by machine shorthand, pursuant to the Texas
· · ··
24· ··Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
· · ··
25· ··the record or attached hereto.
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd
Page 120
·1· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··You can't do Plaintiff's
·2· ·exhibit --
·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··I'm going to mark -- I'm
·4· ·going to mark it as Exhibit 53.··If you gentlemen
·5· ·have a rule that says I can't do that, let me know.
·6· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··You can't call it
·7· ·Plaintiff's 53.
·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··I said I'm going to call it
·9· ·Exhibit 53.··So I'm --
10· · · · · ·(Simultaneous indiscernible cross-talk.)
11· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··-- what you said there Feibus,
12· ·that's why we got it.
13· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··Feibus.··Man, y'all got
14· ·something going on with y'all over there.
15· · · ··Q.··All right.··Mr. Cruz, I'm going to show you
16· ·what I'm marking as Exhibit 53 for Mr. Munoz and
17· ·Exhibit 54 for Mr. Aronovich.
18· · · · · · · · ·Now, for the -- quickly for the benefit of
19· ·the members of the jury, are the licenses that y'all's
20· ·company uses and the -- the investigators underneath
21· ·your company, is that from the Texas Department of
22· ·Public Safety?
23· · · ··A.··Yes, sir, whatever the -- the state requires.
24· · · ··Q.··Okay.··And are you familiar with being able
25· ·to check to see whether or not someone has a license,
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd
Page 121
·1· ·or not, according to the State of Texas?
·2· · · ··A.··Yes, sir.
·3· · · ··Q.··Are you familiar with a website called
·4· ·Texas Online Private Security?
·5· · · ··A.··Yes, sir.
·6· · · ··Q.··And go ahead and explain to the jury, very
·7· ·fast, what Texas Online Private Security is?
·8· · · ··A.··It's a web portal where we are able to log in
·9· ·and be able to manage our company license, and within --
10· ·within that same portal is where we report our license
11· ·for our individual investigators.
12· · · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 53 identified.)
13· · · ··Q.··Let me go ahead and show you what we've marked
14· ·as Exhibit 53.··Have you ever seen a document that looks
15· ·like this before?
16· · · ··A.··Yes.
17· · · ··Q.··And what exactly are we looking at?
18· · · ··A.··This would appear to be a search result done
19· ·within the web portal.··It seems to be for a particular
20· ·individual, Mr. Munoz.
21· · · ··Q.··So right there, where I've marked in red, where
22· ·it says Texas Department of Public Safety, that's that
23· ·website we were just talking about?
24· · · ··A.··Yes, the -- the -- the layout of the document
25· ·looked familiar.
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd
Page 126
·1· ·Safety stamp on it?
·2· · · ··A.··Yes, sir.
·3· · · ··Q.··Okay.··And then it wants to know -- you know,
·4· ·I hit a button that says I'm not a robot, right?··You
·5· ·see, but I've actually already clicked that.
·6· · · ··A.··Yeah.
·7· · · ··Q.··Okay.··Is this the website and is this the
·8· ·portal where we can go check with the State of Texas
·9· ·whether or not someone has a valid private investigator
10· ·license?
11· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form.
12· · · ··A.··Yes.
13· · · ··Q.··Okay.
14· · · ··A.··It looks familiar, yeah.
15· · · ··Q.··I'm sorry?
16· · · ··A.··Yes, it -- it looks familiar to what I've seen
17· ·in the past, yeah.
18· · · ··Q.··Okay.··If I were to search for Vincent Munoz,
19· ·the Vincent Munoz in this case is not an alarm systems
20· ·installer, is he?
21· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form.
22· · · ··A.··Not for us.
23· · · ··Q.··Okay.··But this Vincent Munoz, Private
24· ·Investigator, Designated Offer -- Officer, when we
25· ·click on that, do you recognize now the private
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd
Page 128
·1· ·Private Security, just like we looked at on the
·2· ·internet?
·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form.
·4· · · ··A.··It's the same.
·5· · · ··Q.··Okay.··So when we look under Timofey Aronovich,
·6· ·that's the other surveiller or investigator in this
·7· ·case, right?
·8· · · ··A.··Yes.
·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form.
10· · · ··Q.··If you answered, I didn't hear you.··I'm sorry.
11· · · ··A.··Oh, I'm sorry.··I said yes.
12· · · ··Q.··Okay.··So looking at Exhibit 54, go ahead and
13· ·tell the members of the jury what the State of Texas
14· ·believes the current status of Mr. Aronovich's private
15· ·investigator license is.
16· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form.
17· · · ··A.··It would appear that the license is active and
18· ·expiring on 12/10/2024.
19· · · ··Q.··And so, if Mr. Aronovich's private investigator
20· ·license was issued on December 10th, 2020 and doesn't
21· ·expire until December of 2024, when Mr. Aronovich was
22· ·surveilling the Plaintiff in this case in May of 2023,
23· ·was he doing so without a private investigator license?
24· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form and leading.
25· · · ··A.··According to -- according to what I see here,
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd
Page 129
·1· ·it states that a Timofey Aronovich had an unexpired
·2· ·private investigator license that was registered and
·3· ·active with the Texas Online Private Security.
·4· · · ··Q.··At the time of May of 2023, right?
·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Leading.
·6· ·Objection.··Form.
·7· · · ··A.··That date -- that date is between 12/10/2020
·8· ·and 12/10/2024.
·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··I'll pass the witness.
10· · · · · · · · ·Thank you, sir.
11· · · · · · · · · · ··FURTHER EXAMINATION
12· ·BY MR. HOOVER:
13· · · ··Q.··Well, Mr. Cruz, the exhibits that --
14· ·specifically the last -- well, never mind.··Let's do
15· ·it this way.
16· · · · · · · · ·When I was asking you questions about
17· ·licensing in Texas, you told me that you needed to go
18· ·do some investigation with some other people, right?
19· ·Do you remember those questions?
20· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··Form.
21· · · ··A.··To properly prepare for your -- for your
22· ·answers, yes.
23· · · ··Q.··That's not what you told Mr. Feibus when he
24· ·was asking you questions about the Texas licenses and
25· ·purported website and website printouts, right?··You
Deposition Resources, Inc.
800.295.4109
3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd
3
EXHIBIT
53
EXHIBIT
exhibitsticker.com
54
EXHIBIT
exhibitsticker.com
Preview
CAUSE NO. 280123 ADRIAN GLIMANE IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE RESTAURANTS, INC. JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant. DEFENDANT’S COMBINED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S PRE TRIAL MOTIONS COMES NOW, Defendant Community Lighthouse Restaurants, Inc. (“Defendant” or CLR”) and files this Combined Response to Plaintiff’s Pre Trial Motions and would respectfully show as follows: DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE VIDEOTAPES AND INVESTIGATIVE WITNESSES Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude video surveillance which captures his client lying about is medical condition is replete with lies, misrepresentations and omissions to this Court of material facts. Plaintiff’s Motion also is apparently unable to articulate the legal standard applicable or simple, direct statements as to the basis of their request to exclude. Further, Texas law and the authority on point but not cited by Plaintiff requires Plaintiff’s Motion to be denied Defense Counsel will attempt to correct all of Plaintiff’s errors as simply and straight forward as possible: Plaintiff Misled The Court As To The Timing Of Video Receipt and Production. Plaintiff either accidentally or deliberately “misunderstands” the timing of the video Plaintiff’s 8/10/2023 Motion to Exclude is duplicative of the relief sought in Plaintiff’s 6/20/2023 Motion to Strike, and this Response is intended to address and respond to the relief sought in both of Plaintiff’s Motions. surveillance and when it was required to be disclosed. First, Plaintiff claims on 5/26/2023 Defense Counsel already possessed the videos: This is patently false and Plaintiff has no good faith basis to make this representation to the Court.The videos were captured on 5/11/2023, less than 6 weeks before trial was originally set. Defense Counsel first received the videos from its insurance company’s adjuster on 6/12/2023 and is willing to offer to waive privilege limited to this one email and only for the purposes of a pre trial hearing, or otherwise offer the email in camera for consideration by the Court. The videos were provided to Plaintiff the very next day on 6/13/2023. More importantly, Plaintiff obviously did not deem these videos important to his case after these videos were produced, Plaintiff did not ask for a trial continuance or file a Motion to Exclude – on the morning of trial Plaintiff instead announced ready for trial. Plaintiff is not surprised or prejudiced by these videos. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.6 states a Party who fails to supplement a discovery response in a timely manner may not introduce in evidence material that was not disclosed unless the Court finds (1) there was good cause for the failure to timely make, amend or supplement the discovery response (2) the failure to supplement the discovery response will not unfairly surprise or unfairly prejudice the other parties. Ex. 1 – 6/13/2023 email re video production Timely Manner and Good Cause: The videos taken on 5/11/2023 were received defense counsel on 6/12/2023 and produced the next day. Approximately 30 days from the date they were taken (and within 1 day of the date they were received by defense counsel or the Defendant) for supplementation is inherently a reasonable and in a “timely manner.” Further, Defense Counsel had no personal knowledge of the company or the investigators doing the surveillance until the day the videos were provided to Defendant and obviously could not have disclosed them. No Unfair Surprise or Unfair Prejudice: ince the videos were produced, and regardless of their complete lack of relevance to this case, Plaintiff has taken the deposition of both of the surveillance witnesses who took the videos AND the deposition of their supervisor who resides in Arizona and did nothing but schedule the job, AND the deposition of the surveillance company’s corporate representative located in Michigan who had even less involvement. The investigators (Munoz and Aronovich) were deposed on 7/28/2023. Their out of state “supervisor Matt Sandoval and the company’s corporate representative Otto Cruz were deposed on 8/3/2023. The identities and contact information for the investigators and their company were formally disclosed on 7/3/2023, but the names and addresses for each witness were included in their affidavits which were produced even earlier on 6/19/2023. Despite knowing about these witnesses and their addresses for over 6 weeks Plaintiff never attempted to serve Munoz and Aronovich with subpoenas, and Plaintiff only attemptedto serve Sandoval and Cruz via email the day before their deposition. Finally, and most importantly, Plaintiff did not discover any new evidence during these recent depositions that surprised or prejudiced his case simply put, nothing about these depositions or any information related to the same changes what the jury will see when they watch the surveillance videos ese videos speak for themselves, and any issues or explanations the Plaintiff deems necessary to attempt to distract from his client’s deception goes to weight and not admissibility. Thus, these videos were supplemented in a timely manner, good cause exists, Plaintiff is not unfairly surprised or prejudiced, and these material, probative videos must be allowed to be presented to the jury for fair and full consideration of the facts. Defendant Does Not Control The Surveillance Witnesses: Plaintiff’s counsel continues to misunderstand Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5 rotecting a witness from a harassing or misleading question does not make that witness controlled by efendant for the purpose of subpoena service per Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.3. Plaintiff relies on the fact Defense Counsel instructed these unrepresented third party witnesses not to answer questions but fails to reveal to the Court these questions were harassing and/or misleading and the witness was properly instructed not to answer per Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5. Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5 states “an attorney may instruct a witness not to answer a question during an oral deposition only if necessary to…protect a witness from an abusive question or one which any answer would be misleading.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.5(f). Nowhere in the plain language of the Rule is that protectionlimited only to an attorney directly representing the witness, and Plaintiff cites no authority that protecting a witness from a harassing and abusive question confers special “control” status over said witness for the purposes of Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.3 and 199 IV. The Surveillance Videos Were Not Materially Altered. Plaintiff claims the videos were “altered and edited and other portions of the video are missing, making them incomplete and unreliable.” Plaintiff conveniently does not make the Court aware the only testimony as to the video being “altered” is that the audio was removed from the videos each investigator provided to its company audio of the investigators in the car and that in no way, shape or form captures anything spoken from the Plaintiff. There is No “Missing Video” Which Portrays the Plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed two out of state witnesses for the surveillance company Matt Sandoval and Otto Cruz. Neither were present during the filming, and neither testified to any personal knowledge of the filming of Plaintiff or the production of the videos. Despite literally having no personal knowledge as to any relevant topic, Plaintiff’s counsel began their deposition at 9:15 am and finished at 6:08 pm Plaintiff’s counsel spent almost 9 hours harassing two witnesses with NO personal knowledge of the video creation. Plaintiff can only use speculative testimony from these two witnesses, properly objected to, because when Plaintiff’s counsel deposed the two witnesses who actually took these videos and actually have personal knowledge of these issues, he completely failed to ask a single question or obtain any evidence that these witnesses altered or took incomplete videos. Speculation, harassment and misleading a witness to obtain testimony that is no evidence there is missing video is unprofessional, unacceptable, and is not a legal ground to exclude this video evidence. Ex. 1 Sandoval Depo at 169:22 170:17. All Investigators Were Properly Licensed, or Alternatively This Is Not Grounds For Exclusion. Plaintiff fails to identify for the Court any legal basis, or any authority, that because Mr. Aronovich believed he did not possess a valid investigator license when these videos were taken, the videos must be excluded While Mr. Aronovich was under the impression he did not have an individual license, the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed he had a valid license at the time of the surveillance , and the same was confirmed by the testimony of Otto Cruz . Relevant excerpts of his deposition are attached as Ex. 2. Further, regardless of the allegations regarding the license, this misstated fact is not grounds for exclusion. In civil cases, even illegally obtained evidence may be admissible at trial. State Taylor, 721 S.W.2d 541, 551 (Tex.App. Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (“Evidence illegally obtained is admissible in civil cases under the common law rule.” ); Sims Cosden Oil & Chem. Co., 663 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) [C]ourts do not concern themselves with the method by which a party to a civil suit secures evidence pertinent and material to the issues involved ... hence evidence which is otherwise admissible may not be excluded because it has been illegally and wrongfully obtained.”. And, generally, all relevant evidence that is not privileged is discoverable. TEX.R. CIV. 192.3. Strategic Impact Corp., 214 S.W.3d 484, 488 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Ex. 3 – Screenshots of Texas DPS.gov Ex. 2 – Cruz Depo at 120:18 121:11; 126:7 12; 128:12 129:8. VI. Plaintiff’s remaining grounds lack merit, are not legal grounds for exclusion of this evidence and will be addressed through oral argument, if necessary. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE Defendant files this brief and response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Nos. 14 and 29 as follows: Motion in Limine 14: Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 14 seeks to exclude any argument or evidence disputing the reasonableness or necessity of Plaintiff’s medical treatment and expenses on the grounds Defendant did not serve controverting affidavits. Plaintiff’s requested is explicitly rejected by the Texas Supreme Court in In Re Allstate Indemnity: “The claimant’s decision to file initial [18.001] affidavits may relieve her of the burden to adduce expert trial testimony on reasonableness and necessity, but the opposing party’s failure to serve a compliant counteraffidavit has impact on its ability to challenge reasonableness or necessity at trial.” Allstate Indem. Co. 622 S.W.3d 870, 881 (Tex. 2021). Motion in Limine No. 29: Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 29 seeks to exclude evidence regarding what each medical provider might have accepted as reimbursement for said procedures. Plaintiff cites no authority supporting this exclusion, and in fact recent jurisprudence demonstrates just how relevant this evidence is for the jury to determine what is truly a “reasonable” charge for the services provided. In 2021 the Texas Supreme Court in In Re ExxonMobil Corp. declared evidence of a medical provider’s rates for private insurers and public payers is relevant when considering the reasonableness of its chargemaster rates, including when a party is challenging the reasonableness of rates supporting a claim for personal injury damages. ExxonMobil Corp. 635 S.W.3d 631, 633 (Tex. 2021). As the Supreme Court held, the jury is tasked with deciding what reasonable amount would compensate the Plaintiff for his past injuries, including past medical expenses. More than one number can be reasonable, and Defendant is entitled to present evidence of Plaintiff’s providers’ inflated and exaggerated expenses so the jury can properly consider what a reasonable amount for treatment would be. PRAYER Defendant asks the Court to DENY Plaintiff’s various Pre Trial Motions and for all other relief to which Defendant may show themselves reasonably entitled to. Respectfully submitted, CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, P.C. By: /s/ R. Kyle Hawes R. Kyle Hawes State Bar No. 00796725 kyle.hawes@chamberlainlaw.com Michael B. Feibus State Bar No. 24087502 michael.feibus@chamberlainlaw.com 1200 Smith, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 658-1818 Telecopier: (713) 658-2553 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE RESTAURANTS, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served via hand delivery, electronic submission, facsimile, U.S. Mail, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested, on August 13, 2023, to the following: Jordan A. Glaze Josh Garrett P.O. Box 1599 Gilmer, Texas 75644 Attorneys for Plaintiff Adrian Glimane /s/ R. Kyle Hawes R. Kyle Hawes EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·· CAUSE NO. 21-DCV-280123 · ·· ·2· ·ADRIAN GLIMANE,· · · · · · ··) IN THE DISTRICT COURT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ) ·3· · · · · ·· Plaintiff,· · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ) ·4· ·VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · ··) 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ) ·5· ·COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE· · · · ·) · · ·RESTAURANT, INC.,· · · · · ··) ·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ) · · · · · · ·· Defendant.· · · · ··) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS ·7· · · ·· ·8· · · ·· ·9· · · · · · ·· ----------------------------------- · ·· 10· · · · · · · · ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF · ·· 11· · · · · · · · · · · · MATTHEW SANDOVAL · ·· 12· · · · · · · · · · · ·· AUGUST 3, 2023 · ·· 13· · · · · · · · · · · · · · VOLUME 1 · ·· 14· · · · · · · · · · ·· (Reported Remotely) · ·· 15· · · · · · ·· ----------------------------------- · ·· 16· · · ·· 17· · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW SANDOVAL, · ·· 18· ·produced as a witness at the instance of the PLAINTIFF, · ·· 19· ·and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and · ·· 20· ·numbered cause on the 3rd day of August, 2023, from · ·· 21· ·9:15 a.m. to 1:10 p.m., via Zoom videoconference, before · ·· 22· ·Terri Garcia, CSR in and for the State of Texas, · ·· 23· ·reported by machine shorthand, at Albuquerque, · ·· 24· ·New Mexico, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil · ·· 25· ·Procedure. Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 8da89fa3-70d2-4be4-8df9-19386e11defe Page 169 ·1· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection, leading. ·2· · · ··A.··Yes. ·3· · · ··Q.··(BY MR. FEIBUS)··Do you get lots and lots and ·4· ·lots of videos from all of your surveillers where they ·5· ·could occasionally be small gaps? ·6· · · ··A.··Yes. ·7· · · ··Q.··Is that anything that stands out to you as a ·8· ·red flag? ·9· · · ··A.··No. 10· · · ··Q.··Does that ever stand out to you as something 11· ·where they're attempting to conceal evidence? 12· · · ··A.··No. 13· · · ··Q.··Okay.··This whole -- I think Mr. Hoover may be 14· ·under the impression that because audio is stripped of 15· ·these videos, that these vi- -- these -- these videos 16· ·have been altered.··Do you consider the removal of audio 17· ·from the video before it gets provided to the client, is 18· ·that destroying evidence? 19· · · ··A.··No. 20· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection, form; objection, 21· ·leading. 22· · · ··Q.··(BY MR. FEIBUS)··Now, if that audio contained 23· ·voices from the person being surveilled, that should be 24· ·included, right? 25· · · ··A.··Yes. Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 8da89fa3-70d2-4be4-8df9-19386e11defe Page 170 ·1· · · ··Q.··If the audio only included the audio of the ·2· ·person taking the video inside of a car, is that ·3· ·something that the client needs to see? ·4· · · ··A.··No. ·5· · · ··Q.··Is that something that provides any useful ·6· ·information whatsoever about the subject of the ·7· ·surveillance? ·8· · · ··A.··No. ·9· · · ··Q.··So do you have any criticisms of the fact that 10· ·you saw a video that had some audio, and then 11· ·ultimately, it went to the client without audio? 12· · · ··A.··I'm sorry, repeat the question. 13· · · ··Q.··Sure.··Do you have any criticisms of the fact 14· ·that there were some videos that started off with audio 15· ·of the car where the surveiller was in and that audio 16· ·got taken out before it went to the client? 17· · · ··A.··No. 18· · · ··Q.··We were looking at Defense Exhibit 89 and you 19· ·got showed, nine minutes in, there was a three-second 20· ·clip.··Do you remember that? 21· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection, form. 22· · · ··A.··Which day? 23· · · ··Q.··(BY MR. FEIBUS)··It -- it was the clip where 24· ·Mr. Hoover asked you, Do you see right when he's about 25· ·to lean over; do you remember that? Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 8da89fa3-70d2-4be4-8df9-19386e11defe EXHIBIT 2 Page 1 ·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CAUSE NO. 21-DCV-280123 · · ·· ·2· ··ADRIAN GLIMANE,· · · · · ··)· ··IN THE DISTRICT COURT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) ·3· · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · ··) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) ·4· ··v.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· ··240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) ·5· ··COMMUNITY LIGHTHOUSE· · · ·) · · ··RESTAURANT, INC.,· · · · ··) ·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) · · · · · ·Defendant.· · · · · ··)· ··FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS ·7· ·· · · ·· ·8· ·· · · ·· ·9· · · ··************************************************ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·VIDEOTAPED 10· ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF 11· ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·OTTO CRUZ, 12· · · · · · · · ··CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR · · · · · · · · · · ·COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS, LLC 13· ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·AUGUST 3, 2023 14· ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(Reported Remotely) 15· · · ··************************************************ · · ·· 16· ·· · · ·· 17· ·· · · ·· 18· · · · · ·VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF OTTO CRUZ, produced · · ·· 19· ··as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiff, and duly · · ·· 20· ··sworn, was taken in the above-styled and -numbered cause · · ·· 21· ··on August 3, 2023, from 1:50 p.m. to 6:08 p.m., before · · ·· 22· ··Dana Taylor, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported · · ·· 23· ··via Zoom by machine shorthand, pursuant to the Texas · · ·· 24· ··Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on · · ·· 25· ··the record or attached hereto. Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd Page 120 ·1· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··You can't do Plaintiff's ·2· ·exhibit -- ·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··I'm going to mark -- I'm ·4· ·going to mark it as Exhibit 53.··If you gentlemen ·5· ·have a rule that says I can't do that, let me know. ·6· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··You can't call it ·7· ·Plaintiff's 53. ·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··I said I'm going to call it ·9· ·Exhibit 53.··So I'm -- 10· · · · · ·(Simultaneous indiscernible cross-talk.) 11· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··-- what you said there Feibus, 12· ·that's why we got it. 13· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··Feibus.··Man, y'all got 14· ·something going on with y'all over there. 15· · · ··Q.··All right.··Mr. Cruz, I'm going to show you 16· ·what I'm marking as Exhibit 53 for Mr. Munoz and 17· ·Exhibit 54 for Mr. Aronovich. 18· · · · · · · · ·Now, for the -- quickly for the benefit of 19· ·the members of the jury, are the licenses that y'all's 20· ·company uses and the -- the investigators underneath 21· ·your company, is that from the Texas Department of 22· ·Public Safety? 23· · · ··A.··Yes, sir, whatever the -- the state requires. 24· · · ··Q.··Okay.··And are you familiar with being able 25· ·to check to see whether or not someone has a license, Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd Page 121 ·1· ·or not, according to the State of Texas? ·2· · · ··A.··Yes, sir. ·3· · · ··Q.··Are you familiar with a website called ·4· ·Texas Online Private Security? ·5· · · ··A.··Yes, sir. ·6· · · ··Q.··And go ahead and explain to the jury, very ·7· ·fast, what Texas Online Private Security is? ·8· · · ··A.··It's a web portal where we are able to log in ·9· ·and be able to manage our company license, and within -- 10· ·within that same portal is where we report our license 11· ·for our individual investigators. 12· · · · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 53 identified.) 13· · · ··Q.··Let me go ahead and show you what we've marked 14· ·as Exhibit 53.··Have you ever seen a document that looks 15· ·like this before? 16· · · ··A.··Yes. 17· · · ··Q.··And what exactly are we looking at? 18· · · ··A.··This would appear to be a search result done 19· ·within the web portal.··It seems to be for a particular 20· ·individual, Mr. Munoz. 21· · · ··Q.··So right there, where I've marked in red, where 22· ·it says Texas Department of Public Safety, that's that 23· ·website we were just talking about? 24· · · ··A.··Yes, the -- the -- the layout of the document 25· ·looked familiar. Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd Page 126 ·1· ·Safety stamp on it? ·2· · · ··A.··Yes, sir. ·3· · · ··Q.··Okay.··And then it wants to know -- you know, ·4· ·I hit a button that says I'm not a robot, right?··You ·5· ·see, but I've actually already clicked that. ·6· · · ··A.··Yeah. ·7· · · ··Q.··Okay.··Is this the website and is this the ·8· ·portal where we can go check with the State of Texas ·9· ·whether or not someone has a valid private investigator 10· ·license? 11· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form. 12· · · ··A.··Yes. 13· · · ··Q.··Okay. 14· · · ··A.··It looks familiar, yeah. 15· · · ··Q.··I'm sorry? 16· · · ··A.··Yes, it -- it looks familiar to what I've seen 17· ·in the past, yeah. 18· · · ··Q.··Okay.··If I were to search for Vincent Munoz, 19· ·the Vincent Munoz in this case is not an alarm systems 20· ·installer, is he? 21· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form. 22· · · ··A.··Not for us. 23· · · ··Q.··Okay.··But this Vincent Munoz, Private 24· ·Investigator, Designated Offer -- Officer, when we 25· ·click on that, do you recognize now the private Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd Page 128 ·1· ·Private Security, just like we looked at on the ·2· ·internet? ·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form. ·4· · · ··A.··It's the same. ·5· · · ··Q.··Okay.··So when we look under Timofey Aronovich, ·6· ·that's the other surveiller or investigator in this ·7· ·case, right? ·8· · · ··A.··Yes. ·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form. 10· · · ··Q.··If you answered, I didn't hear you.··I'm sorry. 11· · · ··A.··Oh, I'm sorry.··I said yes. 12· · · ··Q.··Okay.··So looking at Exhibit 54, go ahead and 13· ·tell the members of the jury what the State of Texas 14· ·believes the current status of Mr. Aronovich's private 15· ·investigator license is. 16· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form. 17· · · ··A.··It would appear that the license is active and 18· ·expiring on 12/10/2024. 19· · · ··Q.··And so, if Mr. Aronovich's private investigator 20· ·license was issued on December 10th, 2020 and doesn't 21· ·expire until December of 2024, when Mr. Aronovich was 22· ·surveilling the Plaintiff in this case in May of 2023, 23· ·was he doing so without a private investigator license? 24· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Form and leading. 25· · · ··A.··According to -- according to what I see here, Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd Page 129 ·1· ·it states that a Timofey Aronovich had an unexpired ·2· ·private investigator license that was registered and ·3· ·active with the Texas Online Private Security. ·4· · · ··Q.··At the time of May of 2023, right? ·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. HOOVER:··Objection.··Leading. ·6· ·Objection.··Form. ·7· · · ··A.··That date -- that date is between 12/10/2020 ·8· ·and 12/10/2024. ·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··I'll pass the witness. 10· · · · · · · · ·Thank you, sir. 11· · · · · · · · · · ··FURTHER EXAMINATION 12· ·BY MR. HOOVER: 13· · · ··Q.··Well, Mr. Cruz, the exhibits that -- 14· ·specifically the last -- well, never mind.··Let's do 15· ·it this way. 16· · · · · · · · ·When I was asking you questions about 17· ·licensing in Texas, you told me that you needed to go 18· ·do some investigation with some other people, right? 19· ·Do you remember those questions? 20· · · · · · · · ·MR. FEIBUS:··Form. 21· · · ··A.··To properly prepare for your -- for your 22· ·answers, yes. 23· · · ··Q.··That's not what you told Mr. Feibus when he 24· ·was asking you questions about the Texas licenses and 25· ·purported website and website printouts, right?··You Deposition Resources, Inc. 800.295.4109 3518824b-e84d-48d6-9d07-94ab7fa9e0dd 3 EXHIBIT 53 EXHIBIT exhibitsticker.com 54 EXHIBIT exhibitsticker.com