Preview
Filing # 179603 / 23C 001740 / O'DONNELL, JOHN P.
Lake Co Common Pleas Court, Clerk Faith Andrews 04/29/2024 11:22 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
BEVCORP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23CV001740
v
Judge John P. O’Donnell
CHRISTOPHER M. RIPOLL, et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST STEVEN
RODRIGUEZ, ZECHARY GRANT, AND PABLO GILBES
Plaintiff Bevcorp, LLC (“Bevcorp”), by and through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 37(A)
of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this Honorable Court for an order compelling
Defendants Steven Rodriguez, Zechary Grant, and Pablo Gilbes Rodriguez (“Defendants”) to fully
respond to Bevcorp’s First set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
(“Discovery Requests”). Despite weeks of extensions to respond to the Discovery Requests,
Defendants have refused to provide any response or produce any documents and have now
indicated, through a motion to stay, that they will not be complying with their discovery obligations
pending resolution of their motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction. Given Defendants’
refusal to engage in discovery, Bevcorp has no option but to seek this Court’s intervention.
Additionally, Bevcorp requests an order from this Court directing Defendants to reimburse it for
its reasonable fees and expenses incurred in filing this Motion
In support of this Motion, a memorandum in support is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John W. Hofstetter
Ryan J. Morley, Bar No. 0077452
rmorley@littler.com
John W. Hofstetter, Bar No. 87731
jhofstetter@littler.com
Andrew N. Domozick, Bar No. 101167
adomozick@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C
Key Tower
127 Public Square
Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114-9612
Telephone: 216.696.7600
Facsimile: 216.696.2038
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BEVCORP, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Civil Rule 37(A)(1) and Local Rule 5.04, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the prior to filing this Motion, the undersigned attempted to resolve this dispute in good faith with
Defendants.
/s/ John W. Hofstetter
John W. Hofstetter
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on April 29, 2024. Notice of this filing
will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system
/s/ John W. Hofstetter
John W. Hofstetter
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
BEVCORP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23CV001740
v
Judge John P. O’Donnell
CHRISTOPHER M. RIPOLL, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY
I INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Bevcorp, LLC (“Bevcorp”) filed this action against Defendants on December 15,
2023, for money damages and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to unfairly
compete and misappropriate trade secrets in violation of their contracts and restrictive covenants
with Bevcorp. (See generally, Compl.). On February 14, 2024, Bevcorp issued Defendants its
First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (collectively,
“Discovery Requests”). (See Affidavit of John W. Hofstetter (“Hofstetter Aff.”) § 2 and Exhibits
1 & 2 thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A). Defendants’ responses were therefore due on March
13, 2024, per Civil Rules 33(A)(3) and 34(B)(1).
On March 4, 2024, Defendants, through co-defendant Christopher Ripoll’s Texas-based
counsel, Elise Miller, requested a fourteen (14) day extension to respond to the Discovery
Requests. Bevcorp, of course, granted that extension. (Hofstetter Aff. at § 3 and Exhibit 3 thereto).
Defendants did not provide any response to the Discovery Requests by the extended deadline. (/d.
at 4). On March 19, 2024, Defendants’ newly retained counsel, Brian Kelly, requested a twenty-
eight (28) day extension to respond to the Discovery Requests. (/d. at { 5 and Exhibit 4 thereto).
While Bevcorp was unwilling to provide a full twenty-eight (28) day extension, Bevcorp permitted
Defendants with another fourteen (14) day extension, until April 10, 2024, to serve their responses
to the Discovery Requests. (/d.).
On April 5, 2024—5 days before Defendants responses to the Discovery Requests were
due—Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Docket Entry
dated April 5, 2024). Contemporaneous with this filing, Defendants’ counsel requested that
Defendants’ responses to the Discovery Requests be held in abeyance indefinitely. (/d. at ] 6 and
Exhibit 5 thereto). The undersigned informed Defendants’ counsel that Bevcorp would not
consent given, infer alia, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss hinges on factual issues, i.e., what
activities Defendants engaged in toward Ohio, and that Bevcorp is not willing to tie its hands in
opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (/d.). That day, Defendants filed their Motion to
Stay Discovery. (See Docket Entry dated April 5, 2024).
On April 10, 2024, the undersigned requested Defendants’ counsel’s availability for a meet
and confer to discuss resolving the subject discovery dispute without court intervention. (/d. at J
8 and Exhibit 6 thereto).
On April 17, 2024, Defendants’ counsel and the undersigned held a meet and confer
conference to discuss the instant discovery dispute. (/d. at § 9 and Exhibit 7 thereto). During the
conference, Defendants took the position, consistent with their Motion to Stay, that resolution of
the personal jurisdiction issue was necessary before Defendants would respond to the Discovery
Requests. (/d.). Bevcorp explained that resolution of a Rule 12 motion was not a predicate to
obtaining discovery against the moving party and, if the rule were otherwise, any party could
forestall responding to discovery by simply filing a Rule 12 motion. (id) Despite the
undersigned’s good faith efforts to resolve the subject dispute, Defendants continue to refuse to
comply with their discovery obligations. Thus, this Court’s intervention is required
IL. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Motion to Compel Standard
An essential purpose of discovery is to eliminate surprise at the time of trial. Jones v.
Murphy, 12 Ohio St.3d 84, 86,465 N.E.2d 444 (1984). The Civil Rules seek to accomplish this
goal by facilitating the free flow of information between the parties and imposing sanctions
for failing to provide timely responses to reasonable inquiries. /d. In this regard, Rule 37(A)
of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the procedure by which a party may compel
discovery from an opposing party. Specifically, a party may file a motion under Rule 37 where,
as here, “[a] party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Civ.R. 33” or “[a] party fails
to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under
Civ.R. 34.” Civ.R. 37(A)(3)(a)(ii)-(iv).
As stated in Rule 37(A)(1), prior to seeking an order to compel discovery, the party seeking
the order must certify that they have in “good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person
or party failing to make discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” The affidavit
executed by the undersigned and attached hereto as Exhibit A authenticates the specific good faith
communications related to counsel’s efforts to follow up and obtain compliance from Defendants
as to their obligations to respond to Bevcorp’s Discovery Requests. Although Defendants have
been afforded multiple weeks of extensions worth of time, Defendants has failed to comply with
their obligations under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, an Order from the Court is
necessary to ensure Bevcorp obtains the discovery necessary for it to prosecute the claims against
Defendants and defend the pending motion to dismiss.
B. Defendants Failed to Comply Wither Their Discovery Obligations.
Despite having twenty-eight (28) days to respond to the Discovery Requests under Civil
Rules 33(A) and 34(B), Defendants failed to provide any response or produce any documents
whatsoever. Worse, after being provided weeks of extensions, Defendants filed a motion to stay
discovery at the eleventh hour to thwart Bevcorp’s discovery efforts. Defendants should not be
permitted to skirt their discovery obligations, particularly where the subject discovery is relevant
to the issue of personal jurisdiction raised by Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly,
Bevcorp respectfully requests that the Court order Defendants to comply with their discovery
obligations within seven (7) days of this Court’s Order, by responding in full to the Discovery
Requests, so that Bevcorp may adequately defend the pending motion to dismiss and prosecute its
claims.
Cc Bevcorp is Entitled to Its Reasonable Fees and Expenses Incurred in
Connection With Filing This Motion
Defendants have blatantly disregarded their discovery obligations. Such disregard, under
the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, entitles Bevcorp to its reasonable attorney fees and expenses
incurred in connection with the filing of this Motion. Toward that end, Rule 37(A)(5) expressly
provides, in pertinent part, that:
If the motion [to compel] is granted, the court shall, after giving an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose
conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that
conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred
in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.
The circumstances in this matter necessitate an award of fees against Defendants, as they
have engaged in an unnecessary, obstructive delay of the discovery process. Defendants have
completely failed to provide any objection, response, or document to Bevcorp’s First Set of
Discovery Requests notwithstanding weeks’ worth of extensions. Under Rule 37(A), this failure
on the part of Defendants entitles Bevcorp to its reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in
bringing this Motion.
Til. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Bevcorp respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant its
Motion to Compel and order Defendants to immediately and fully respond to Bevcorp First Set of
Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Bevcorp further requests
that the Court order Defendants to pay Bevcorp’s reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees
associated with the preparation and filing of this Motion
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John W. Hofstetter
Ryan J. Morley, Bar No. 77452
rmorley@littler.com
John W. Hofstetter, Bar No. 87731
jhofstetter@littler.com
Andrew N. Domozick, Bar No. 101167
adomozick@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C
Key Tower
127 Public Square
Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114-9612
Telephone: 216.696.7600
Facsimile: 216.696.2038
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BEVCORP, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on April 29, 2024. Notice of this filing
will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ John W. Hofstetter
John W. Hofstetter
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
EXHIBIT A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
BEVCORP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23CV001740
v.
Judge John P. O’Donnell
CHRISTOPHER M. RIPOLL, et al.,
Defendants.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY )
) SS: AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. HOFSTETTER
STATE OF OHIO )
I, John W. Hofstetter, being first duly sworn, depose and state I am of full age. and have
personal knowledge of the following facts:
1 I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio, and | am one of the
attorneys representing Plaintiff Bevcorp, LLC (“Bevcorp”) in the above matter captioned Bevcorp,
LLC v. Christopher M. Ripoll, et al., Case No. 23CV001740, Court of Common Pleas, Lake
County, Ohio (the “Action”).
2 On February 14, 2024, Bevcorp issued Defendants Steven Rodriguez, Zechary
Grant, and Pablo Gilbes Rodriguez (“Defendants”) its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, “Discovery Requests”). Attached as Exhibit
| is a true and accurate copy of the courtesy email providing Defendants with electronic copies of
the Discovery Requests. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the Discovery
Requests served upon Defendants via regular mail.
3 On March 4, 2024, Defendants, through co-defendant Christopher Ripoll’s Texas-
based counsel, Elise Miller, requested a fourteen (14) day extension to respond to the Discovery
Requests (“First Extension”). Bevcorp granted this extension. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and
accurate copy of the First Extension.
4 Defendants did not provide any responses to the Discovery Requests by the
extended deadline.
5 On March 19, 2024, Defendants’ newly retained counsel. Brian Kelly, requested a
twenty-eight (28) day extension to respond to the Discovery Requests. Bevcrop permitted
Defendants with another fourteen (14) day extension, until April 10, 2024, to serve their responses
to the Discovery Requests (“Second Extension”). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy
of the Second Extension.
6 On April 5, 2024—5 days before Defendants were to serve responses to the
Discovery Requests—Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
(See Docket Entry dated April 5, 2024). Contemporaneous with this filing, Defendants’ counsel
requested that Defendants’ responses to the Discovery Requests be held in abeyance indefinitely
(“Abeyance Request”). The undersigned informed Defendants’ counsel that Bevcorp would not
consent given, inter alia, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss hinges on factual issues, i.e., what
activities Defendants engaged in directed toward Ohio, and that Bevcorp is not willing to tie its
hands in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate
copy of the Abeyance Request.
7 That day, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. (See Docket Entry dated
April 5, 2024).
8 On April 10, 2024, the undersigned emailed Defendants’ counsel requesting a meet-
and-confer conference (the “Meet and Confer Request”), Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and
accurate copy of the Meet and Confer Request.
9 On April 17, 2024, the undersigned and Defendants’ counsel held a meet-and
confer telephone conference to discuss resolving the subject discovery dispute (the “Meet and
Confer Conference”).
10. During the Meet and Confer Conference, Defendants took the position, consistent
with their Motion to Stay, that resolution of the personal jurisdiction issue was necessary before
Defendants would respond to the Discovery Requests. Bevcorp explained that resolution of a Rule
12 motion was not a predicate to obtaining discovery against the moving party and, if the rule were
otherwise, any party could indefinitely forestall responding to discovery by simply filing a Rule
12 motion. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of the communications exchanged
following the Meet and Confer Conference.
Il. Following the Meet and Confer Conference, the undersigned then continued to try
and work with Defendants’ counsel to resolve this issue without this Court’s intervention. After
making it clear that Defendants would not be materially changing their position with respect to the
present dispute, Bevcorp was left with no choice but to move forward to seek redress for its rights.
Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and accurate copy of my follow-up communications trying to resolve
this matter without Court intervention.
12. Despite the undersigned’s good faith efforts to resolve the subject dispute, to date,
Defendants have refused to provide responses to the Discovery Requests.
FURTHER SAYETH AFFIANT NAUGHT.
et
ay Fofstetter
L
r”"
SWORN TO and subscribed before me this “ day of April 2024.
AA.
Nota Pabli” ene
BRIAL S BRIAN FITZGERALD,
\UZ
Attorney
Notary Public. State of Ohio
= My commission has
No expiration date.
Section 147.03 O.R.C.
E'oES
EXHIBIT 1
From: Hofstetter, John
To: Domozick, Andrew
Subject: FW: Chris Ripoll
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:50:32 PM
Attachments: image002.ong
Fi if Inter ri Rodric
rst rogatoi blo odriquez 486 "779 docx
4874~ -
Fi forPt =Z 4 3157 1.docx
rst st fol ction of Doc ments - 00 do
ion of Do nts — ilb do
Fi forPr = Mic r 4 1-3: 6213 1
rst Reg rod ion of Do ments - Ch opher M. Ripo 6 09 do
nts —
Original service
From: Hofstetter, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:54 PM
To: Elise Miller
Cc: Laurence Stuart ; Jessica Camarena ;
Morley, Ryan
Subject: RE: Chris Ripoll
Good evening, Elise:
Thank you for circling back with us. We have good availability for a follow-up call next Thursday,
February 22" in the afternoon EST. Please let us know some time(s) that work for you guys. We
will plan on circling back with you on some of the items you raised during our prior call. We would
also ask that you be prepared to address some of the items we previously raised, too.
In addition, please see the attached courtesy service copies of written discovery mailed out earlier
today. Since it is unclear if the other co-defendants are presently represented by counsel, and
because we do not wish to improperly engage in ex-parte email communications with those co-
defendants, we ask that you please share these electronic copies with those co-defendants, so that
they may utilize these electronic versions in formulating their respective responses.
Regards,
John Hofstetter
Attorney at Law
216.623.6094 direct, 216.317.9796 mobile
JHofstetter@littler.com
Lit ler
Fueled by ingenuity. Inspired by you
Labor & Employment Law Solutions | Local Everywhere
127 Public Sq, Key Tower, Ste 1600, Cleveland, OH 44114
From: Elise Miller
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:59 PM
To: Hofstetter, John ; Morley, Ryan
Cc: Laurence Stuart ; Jessica Camarena
Subject: Chris Ripoll
[EXTERNAL E-MAIL]
John and Ryan,
| wanted to circle back on this matter. Have you had a chance to discuss any of the issues
raised on our last call with your client? We’d like to schedule a follow-up call next week if you
have some availability. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Elise
ELISE MILLER
STUARTre
629 HeicHrs Buvo.
Houston, Texas 77007
(713) 337-3758 orFice
(713) 481-6320 Fax
emiller@stuartpc.com
www. STUARTPC.com
EXHIBIT 2
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
BEVCORP LLC,
CASE NO.: 23CV001740
Plaintiff,
JUDGE: JOHN P. O’DONNELL
V.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
CHRIS RIPOLL, et al., INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
STEVEN RODRIGUEZ
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Bevcorp LLC (“Bevcorp” or “Plaintiff’), by and through undersigned counsel
and pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits its First Set
of Interrogatories to Defendant Steven Rodriguez (“Defendant”). Plaintiff's interrogatories are to
be answered fully, in writing, and under oath and are to be served upon Plaintiffs counsel at the
law offices of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 1600, Cleveland,
Ohio 44114, within twenty-eight days of service. In answering the interrogatories, Defendant is
to furnish such information as is available to Defendant, not merely such information that is within
Defendant’s own knowledge.
Pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), each of the following interrogatories is
deemed to be continuing to the date of trial. If Defendant or Defendant’s counsel learns that any
response is inaccurate or incomplete, or if an answer becomes incomplete by reason of a
development occurring after these answers are signed, Defendant is under an obligation to
promptly supplement each inaccurate or incomplete answer.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
> «6,
A The terms “you, your,” and “Defendant” refer to Defendant Steven Rodriguez,
Defendant’s attorneys, agents, representatives, and/or any other person or entity purporting to act
on Defendant’s behalf.
B The term “Complaint” refers to the Complaint filed in this action
Cc “Documents” includes, without limitation, the original, drafts, or any copies,
regardless of origin or location, of any written matter, notes, memoranda, written information,
correspondence, print-outs, diaries, photographs, video tapes, audio tapes, information maintained
in a computerized database or stored or maintained in any computer memory, computer program,
data processing system, diskette, CD, back-up tape, or other storage medium, books, pamphlets,
periodicals, letters, calendars, messages, records, studies, invoices, vouchers, checks, statements,
charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, blueprints, microfilm, or any other tangible object upon which or
within which information is recorded or encoded, to which you have or may have access, and
copies or reproductions of any of the above that differ in any respect from the original, such as
copies containing marginal notations or other variations.
D. “Person” and “persons” shall each mean individuals, corporations, proprietorships,
partnerships, firms, associations, joint ventures, banks, any government or governmental bodies,
commissions, boards or agencies, and all other legal entities, and if appropriate or indicated,
divisions, subsidiaries or departments of corporations or persons, and the principals, agents,
servants or employees of the aforesaid entities.
E The term “identify”:
a. When used in reference to a person means to state his or her full name,
present or last known residence address, the position(s) of employment held
by the person at the time to which the Interrogatory relates and at the present
time, the names and addresses of his or her employer(s) at the time to which
the Interrogatory relates and at the present time, and the present or last
known telephone number at which the person may be reached;
When used in reference to a document, means to state the type of document,
date, author or addressor, addressee of all copies, recipient of all copies,
title, the present location or address of the custodian of all copies, the
substance of the content thereof, and form control number, if any, of each
copy. In lieu of identifying any particular copy of a document according to
the foregoing, a copy thereof may be furnished;
When used in reference to a corporation, company, association, partnership,
or legal entity other than a natural person means to state its full name, its
state of incorporation, its principal place of business, telephone number, and
mailing address;
When used in reference to an oral communication means to state the date
and time when it occurred, the place where it occurred, the complete
substance and content of the communication and to identify each person to
whom such communication was made, by whom such communication was
made, and who was present when such communication was made. If the
communication was made by telephone, identify each person who made
each telephone call and who participated in each call, identify the place
where each person participating in each call was located, and identify all
documents relating in any way to the subject matter of the communication;
and
When used in reference to an act or event means to state to the fullest extent
known or ascertainable, the time, date, place and duration of the act or event,
to identify each person present at the act or event, and to set forth what was
said and done by each person present.
F The word “identify,” when used in reference to an expert witness, means to state
(a) the expert’s name, address, and occupation; (b) the questions or issues which he/she has been
asked to address, to provide an opinion on, or to otherwise assist you on; (c) the subject matter on
which each expert is expected to testify or otherwise provide an opinion; (d) the substance of all
facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify or otherwise provide to you; (e) a
summary of the grounds for each opinion of each expert; (f) a list of every case, together with the
case number and court, in which each expert has either been retained as an expert and/or testified
at trial as an expert, together with a brief description of the type of case within which he/she was
an expert; and (g) to identify all documents and/or data relied upon to reach any conclusions or
opinions.
G. The term “concerning” means relating to, referring to, evidencing or constituting.
H. The terms “communicate” and “communication” are defined as every manner or
means of disclosure, transfer, or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer, or exchange of
information, whether made or accomplished orally or by document, whether face to face, by
telephone, mail, telex, facsimile, personal delivery, or otherwise.
> «6,
I The term “each” shall mean “each,” “every, any,” and “all.”
J The term “including” shall mean “including, but not limited to.”
K The terms “relating to” and “related to” mean consisting of, identifying,
concerning, referring to, alluding to, responding to, in connection with, commenting on, in
response to, about, regarding, explaining, discussing, showing, describing, studying, reflecting,
analyzing, or constituting.
L The word “and” and the word “or” shall be used conjunctively or disjunctively as
necessary to make the interrogatories inclusive rather than exclusive.
M. The past tense shall include the present tense and vice versa; the word “including”
means “including without limitation;” the word “he” or any other masculine pronoun includes any
individual regardless of sex and vice versa.
N These Interrogatories are intended to cover all information in your possession,
custody or control, or the possession, custody, or control of your agents, representatives,
employees or attorneys, as well as any and all information within the possession, custody or control
of any third party or parties who, upon your request, would surrender possession, custody or
control to you.
Oo If you do not know the answer to an Interrogatory, identify the person or persons
who would be expected to know the answer.
P. If you cannot produce certain information or any portion thereof after exercising
due diligence to uncover it, so state in writing and produce whatever portion of said information
possible, specifying the reason for your inability to produce the information or the remainder
thereof and stating whatever knowledge you have concerning the information or the portion thereof
you are unable to produce including, but not limited to, the subject matter of such information, or
missing portion thereof which was, but is no longer, in your possession, custody or control, and
state what disposition was made of it and the reason for such disposition.
Q In the event that you file a proper and timely objection to any interrogatory, answer
all portions of that interrogatory that does not fall within your objection. For instance, if you object
to an interrogatory on the ground that it is too broad because it asks for information concerning
years you contend are not relevant to this lawsuit, at least provide an answer for all years you admit
are relevant to this lawsuit.
R. Regardless of whether any of these interrogatories, instructions, and definitions use
a term in the plural or singular form, the term shall be construed in both the singular and plural
forms as is necessary to require the most inclusive answer.
Ss If you object to the production of any information on the grounds of attorney-client,
work product or other privilege, then for such information
a. Identify the type and general subject matter of the information;
b Briefly state the basis for the claim of privilege including the specific
privilege being asserted; and
Provide any potion of the information to which the claim of privilege does
not apply.
T The term “electronic storage device” includes any device capable of storing
electronic information, including hard-drives, flash drives, zip drives, thumb drives, DAT, data
cartridges, tape back-ups, floppy disks, data CDs, writeable DVDs, and any and all other electronic
data storage media.
U These Interrogatories are continuing and if, in the future, other or additional
information responsive to them is discovered by you, then it should be produced in a timely
manner, but in no event later than twenty days after its discovery.
Vv. Plaintiff reserves the right to serve additional Interrogatories.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify each person whom you know or believe to have information regarding: (a) any of
the allegations contained in the Complaint; or (b) your defenses to those allegations. For each
such person, describe the nature of such information.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each witness that you intend to call to testify at any hearing or trial in this case:
For each such witness, describe that person’s anticipated testimony, as well as what knowledge
you believe he/she possesses regarding this case.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify, as set forth in “Instruction F” above, each person whom you expect to call as an
expert witness at trial.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify all documents that you intend to introduce as an exhibit at any hearing, deposition,
or the trial in this case, as evidence or for use as impeachment.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Excluding your attorneys and their legal staff, identify each person with whom you
communicated regarding this lawsuit or the underlying factual allegations in the Complaint. For
each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the
conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of
discussion. In addition, identify any statements — tape recorded, typed, or written — concerning
facts related to the allegations in the Complaint and identify the person giving each such statement,
the date of each such statement, and the subject matter of each such statement.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify each and every electronic computing, communication or data storage device
(including, but not limited to computers, hard drives, PDAs, USB devices, cell phones, or hand
held devices) that you have either owned or used for personal reasons since January 1, 2023, and
that you may have used to create, send, receive, store, or otherwise access documents that are
responsive to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production, or related to the allegations
contained in the Complaint, or otherwise related to your defenses to the Complaint. For each
electronic storage device, please provide the following information:
a. The make (e.g. Dell, IBM, Apple) of the electronic storage device;
b The model (e.g. Thinkpad, iPad) of the electronic storage device;
The year of the electronic storage device;
Whether or not the electronic storage device is presently in your possession,
custody or control and, if so, the present location of the electronic storage device;
Tf the electronic storage device is no longer in your possession, custody or control,
the date (month, day and year) upon which the electronic storage device ceased
being in your possession, custody or control.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. :
Identify all work, personal, or cellular phone numbers, e-mail addresses, internet service
providers, and internet usernames that you used at any time since January 1, 2023.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Identify each current or former customer of Bevcorp with whom you have had any contact
or communication with since January 1, 2023. For each such communication, specify whether it
was oral or written, and if oral, specify the participants in the conversation, when and where the
conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion. If the communication
was written, identify the date and substance of the written communication.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Identify each and every customer (former, current or prospective) of Bevcorp with whom
you had any communications from August 1, 2023 to the present about your departure from
Bevcorp, future plans, or employment with Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer
Services. For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in
the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics
of discussion
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Identify each and every communication you had with any employee of Beverage
Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services from January 1, 2023 to the present regarding
Plaintiff, Plaintiffs (current or former) customers, this lawsuit, or any of the allegations reflected
in the lawsuit For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the
participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom,
and the topics of discussion.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify each and every communication you had with any current or former employee of
Bevcorp from January 1, 2023 to the present concerning Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First
Op Seamer Services, the termination or potential termination of any employment relationship with
Bevcorp by you or the Bevcorp employee, or any agreement between you and Bevcorp. For each
such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation,
when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Identify each and every third-party with whom you had any communications from January
1, 2023 to the present about your departure from Bevcorp, future plans, and employment with
Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services. For each such communication,
specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation, when and where the
conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion.
ANSWER:
10
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Identify any documents that you have destroyed and/or deleted since January 1, 2023 that
would have been responsive to Plaintiff's First Request
for Production of Documents served on
you.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Identify all Bevcorp business information, files, or property that are within your possession,
custody, or control
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Identify all work phone numbers, personal phone numbers, cellular phone numbers, e-mail
addresses, Internet storage accounts, Internet usernames, or social networking accounts (including
any Facebook account, Twitter account, MySpace account, LinkedIn or other professional
networking account, Skype account, Blogger/Blogspot account, iCloud, Dropbox, Slack account
or any other page or account created and/or maintained by you on any Internet-based social
networking, communication or storage site) that you used at any time since January 1, 2023 and
that you may have used to create, send, receive, store, or otherwise access documents that are
responsive to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production, or related to the allegations
contained in the Complaint, or otherwise related to the claims or your defenses.
ANSWER
11
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John W. Hofstetter
Ryan J. Morley (0077452)
John W. Hofstetter (0087731)
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Key Tower, 217 Public Square, Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 696-7600
Fax: (216) 649-0540
Email: rmorley@littler.com
jhofstetter@littler.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories to Defendant Steven Rodriguez was sent via United States Mail on February 14,
2024 to the following:
Steven Rodriguez
1938 Mustang Bluff Lane
Katy, Texas 77494
Michael Leininger
337 Main Street
Delta, PA 17314
Audrey Hiser
3608 Normandy Road
Shaker Heights, OH 44120
Zechary Grant
600 NJ-50
Corbin City, NJ 08270
Pablo Gilbes Rodriguez
3022 Panther Drive
Lakeland, FL 33812
Elise Miller and Stuart Laurence (Attorneys for Defendants Christopher M. Ripoll and Beverage
Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services)
STUART PC
629 Heights Blvd.
Houston, TX 77007.
/s/ John W. Hofstette:
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
4853-3337-5909.1 /061577-1219
13
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
BEVCORP LLC,
CASE NO.: 23CV001740
Plaintiff,
JUDGE: JOHN P. O’DONNELL
Vv.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
CHRIS RIPOLL, et al., INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
ZECHARY GRANT
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Bevcorp LLC (“Bevcorp” or “Plaintiff’), by and through undersigned counsel
and pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits its First Set
of Interrogatories to Defendant Zechary Grant (“Defendant”). Plaintiff's interrogatories are to be
answered fully, in writing, and under oath and are to be served upon Plaintiffs counsel at the law
offices of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 1600, Cleveland, Ohio
44114, within twenty-eight days of service. In answering the interrogatories, Defendant is to
furnish such information as is available to Defendant, not merely such information that is within
Defendant’s own knowledge
Pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), each of the following interrogatories is
deemed to be continuing to the date of trial. If Defendant or Defendant’s counsel learns that any
response is inaccurate or incomplete, or if an answer becomes incomplete by reason of a
development occurring after these answers are signed, Defendant is under an obligation to
promptly supplement each inaccurate or incomplete answer.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
> «6,
A The terms “you, your,” and “Defendant” refer to Defendant Zechary Grant,
Defendant’s attorneys, agents, representatives, and/or any other person or entity purporting to act
on Defendant’s behalf.
B The term “Complaint” refers to the Complaint filed in this action
Cc “Documents” includes, without limitation, the original, drafts, or any copies,
regardless of origin or location, of any written matter, notes, memoranda, written information,
correspondence, print-outs, diaries, photographs, video tapes, audio tapes, information maintained
in a computerized database or stored or maintained in any computer memory, computer program,
data processing system, diskette, CD, back-up tape, or other storage medium, books, pamphlets,
periodicals, letters, calendars, messages, records, studies, invoices, vouchers, checks, statements,
charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, blueprints, microfilm, or any other tangible object upon which or
within which information is recorded or encoded, to which you have or may have access, and
copies or reproductions of any of the above that differ in any respect from the original, such as
copies containing marginal notations or other variations.
D. “Person” and “persons” shall each mean individuals, corporations, proprietorships,
partnerships, firms, associations, joint ventures, banks, any government or governmental bodies,
commissions, boards or agencies, and all other legal entities, and if appropriate or indicated,
divisions, subsidiaries or departments of corporations or persons, and the principals, agents,
servants or employees of the aforesaid entities.
E The term “identify”:
a. When used in reference to a person means to state his or her full name,
present or last known residence address, the position(s) of employment held
by the person at the time to which the Interrogatory relates and at the present
time, the names and addresses of his or her employer(s) at the time to which
the Interrogatory relates and at the present time, and the present or last
known telephone number at which the person may be reached;
When used in reference to a document, means to state the type of document,
date, author or addressor, addressee of all copies, recipient of all copies,
title, the present location or address of the custodian of all copies, the
substance of the content thereof, and form control number, if any, of each
copy. In lieu of identifying any particular copy of a document according to
the foregoing, a copy thereof may be furnished;
When used in reference to a corporation, company, association, partnership,
or legal entity other than a natural person means to state its full name, its
state of incorporation, its principal place of business, telephone number, and
mailing address;
When used in reference to an oral communication means to state the date
and time when it occurred, the place where it occurred, the complete
substance and content of the communication and to identify each person to
whom such communication was made, by whom such communication was
made, and who was present when such communication was made. If the
communication was made by telephone, identify each person who made
each telephone ca
Preview
Filing # 179603 / 23C 001740 / O'DONNELL, JOHN P. Lake Co Common Pleas Court, Clerk Faith Andrews 04/29/2024 11:22 AM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO BEVCORP, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No. 23CV001740 v Judge John P. O’Donnell CHRISTOPHER M. RIPOLL, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST STEVEN RODRIGUEZ, ZECHARY GRANT, AND PABLO GILBES Plaintiff Bevcorp, LLC (“Bevcorp”), by and through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 37(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this Honorable Court for an order compelling Defendants Steven Rodriguez, Zechary Grant, and Pablo Gilbes Rodriguez (“Defendants”) to fully respond to Bevcorp’s First set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (“Discovery Requests”). Despite weeks of extensions to respond to the Discovery Requests, Defendants have refused to provide any response or produce any documents and have now indicated, through a motion to stay, that they will not be complying with their discovery obligations pending resolution of their motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction. Given Defendants’ refusal to engage in discovery, Bevcorp has no option but to seek this Court’s intervention. Additionally, Bevcorp requests an order from this Court directing Defendants to reimburse it for its reasonable fees and expenses incurred in filing this Motion In support of this Motion, a memorandum in support is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W. Hofstetter Ryan J. Morley, Bar No. 0077452 rmorley@littler.com John W. Hofstetter, Bar No. 87731 jhofstetter@littler.com Andrew N. Domozick, Bar No. 101167 adomozick@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C Key Tower 127 Public Square Suite 1600 Cleveland, OH 44114-9612 Telephone: 216.696.7600 Facsimile: 216.696.2038 Attorneys for Plaintiff BEVCORP, LLC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Civil Rule 37(A)(1) and Local Rule 5.04, the undersigned hereby certifies that the prior to filing this Motion, the undersigned attempted to resolve this dispute in good faith with Defendants. /s/ John W. Hofstetter John W. Hofstetter One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on April 29, 2024. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system /s/ John W. Hofstetter John W. Hofstetter One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO BEVCORP, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No. 23CV001740 v Judge John P. O’Donnell CHRISTOPHER M. RIPOLL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY I INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Bevcorp, LLC (“Bevcorp”) filed this action against Defendants on December 15, 2023, for money damages and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to unfairly compete and misappropriate trade secrets in violation of their contracts and restrictive covenants with Bevcorp. (See generally, Compl.). On February 14, 2024, Bevcorp issued Defendants its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, “Discovery Requests”). (See Affidavit of John W. Hofstetter (“Hofstetter Aff.”) § 2 and Exhibits 1 & 2 thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A). Defendants’ responses were therefore due on March 13, 2024, per Civil Rules 33(A)(3) and 34(B)(1). On March 4, 2024, Defendants, through co-defendant Christopher Ripoll’s Texas-based counsel, Elise Miller, requested a fourteen (14) day extension to respond to the Discovery Requests. Bevcorp, of course, granted that extension. (Hofstetter Aff. at § 3 and Exhibit 3 thereto). Defendants did not provide any response to the Discovery Requests by the extended deadline. (/d. at 4). On March 19, 2024, Defendants’ newly retained counsel, Brian Kelly, requested a twenty- eight (28) day extension to respond to the Discovery Requests. (/d. at { 5 and Exhibit 4 thereto). While Bevcorp was unwilling to provide a full twenty-eight (28) day extension, Bevcorp permitted Defendants with another fourteen (14) day extension, until April 10, 2024, to serve their responses to the Discovery Requests. (/d.). On April 5, 2024—5 days before Defendants responses to the Discovery Requests were due—Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Docket Entry dated April 5, 2024). Contemporaneous with this filing, Defendants’ counsel requested that Defendants’ responses to the Discovery Requests be held in abeyance indefinitely. (/d. at ] 6 and Exhibit 5 thereto). The undersigned informed Defendants’ counsel that Bevcorp would not consent given, infer alia, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss hinges on factual issues, i.e., what activities Defendants engaged in toward Ohio, and that Bevcorp is not willing to tie its hands in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (/d.). That day, Defendants filed their Motion to Stay Discovery. (See Docket Entry dated April 5, 2024). On April 10, 2024, the undersigned requested Defendants’ counsel’s availability for a meet and confer to discuss resolving the subject discovery dispute without court intervention. (/d. at J 8 and Exhibit 6 thereto). On April 17, 2024, Defendants’ counsel and the undersigned held a meet and confer conference to discuss the instant discovery dispute. (/d. at § 9 and Exhibit 7 thereto). During the conference, Defendants took the position, consistent with their Motion to Stay, that resolution of the personal jurisdiction issue was necessary before Defendants would respond to the Discovery Requests. (/d.). Bevcorp explained that resolution of a Rule 12 motion was not a predicate to obtaining discovery against the moving party and, if the rule were otherwise, any party could forestall responding to discovery by simply filing a Rule 12 motion. (id) Despite the undersigned’s good faith efforts to resolve the subject dispute, Defendants continue to refuse to comply with their discovery obligations. Thus, this Court’s intervention is required IL. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. Motion to Compel Standard An essential purpose of discovery is to eliminate surprise at the time of trial. Jones v. Murphy, 12 Ohio St.3d 84, 86,465 N.E.2d 444 (1984). The Civil Rules seek to accomplish this goal by facilitating the free flow of information between the parties and imposing sanctions for failing to provide timely responses to reasonable inquiries. /d. In this regard, Rule 37(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the procedure by which a party may compel discovery from an opposing party. Specifically, a party may file a motion under Rule 37 where, as here, “[a] party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Civ.R. 33” or “[a] party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Civ.R. 34.” Civ.R. 37(A)(3)(a)(ii)-(iv). As stated in Rule 37(A)(1), prior to seeking an order to compel discovery, the party seeking the order must certify that they have in “good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” The affidavit executed by the undersigned and attached hereto as Exhibit A authenticates the specific good faith communications related to counsel’s efforts to follow up and obtain compliance from Defendants as to their obligations to respond to Bevcorp’s Discovery Requests. Although Defendants have been afforded multiple weeks of extensions worth of time, Defendants has failed to comply with their obligations under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, an Order from the Court is necessary to ensure Bevcorp obtains the discovery necessary for it to prosecute the claims against Defendants and defend the pending motion to dismiss. B. Defendants Failed to Comply Wither Their Discovery Obligations. Despite having twenty-eight (28) days to respond to the Discovery Requests under Civil Rules 33(A) and 34(B), Defendants failed to provide any response or produce any documents whatsoever. Worse, after being provided weeks of extensions, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery at the eleventh hour to thwart Bevcorp’s discovery efforts. Defendants should not be permitted to skirt their discovery obligations, particularly where the subject discovery is relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction raised by Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Bevcorp respectfully requests that the Court order Defendants to comply with their discovery obligations within seven (7) days of this Court’s Order, by responding in full to the Discovery Requests, so that Bevcorp may adequately defend the pending motion to dismiss and prosecute its claims. Cc Bevcorp is Entitled to Its Reasonable Fees and Expenses Incurred in Connection With Filing This Motion Defendants have blatantly disregarded their discovery obligations. Such disregard, under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, entitles Bevcorp to its reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with the filing of this Motion. Toward that end, Rule 37(A)(5) expressly provides, in pertinent part, that: If the motion [to compel] is granted, the court shall, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. The circumstances in this matter necessitate an award of fees against Defendants, as they have engaged in an unnecessary, obstructive delay of the discovery process. Defendants have completely failed to provide any objection, response, or document to Bevcorp’s First Set of Discovery Requests notwithstanding weeks’ worth of extensions. Under Rule 37(A), this failure on the part of Defendants entitles Bevcorp to its reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in bringing this Motion. Til. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Bevcorp respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant its Motion to Compel and order Defendants to immediately and fully respond to Bevcorp First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Bevcorp further requests that the Court order Defendants to pay Bevcorp’s reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees associated with the preparation and filing of this Motion Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W. Hofstetter Ryan J. Morley, Bar No. 77452 rmorley@littler.com John W. Hofstetter, Bar No. 87731 jhofstetter@littler.com Andrew N. Domozick, Bar No. 101167 adomozick@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C Key Tower 127 Public Square Suite 1600 Cleveland, OH 44114-9612 Telephone: 216.696.7600 Facsimile: 216.696.2038 Attorneys for Plaintiff BEVCORP, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on April 29, 2024. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. /s/ John W. Hofstetter John W. Hofstetter One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff EXHIBIT A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO BEVCORP, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No. 23CV001740 v. Judge John P. O’Donnell CHRISTOPHER M. RIPOLL, et al., Defendants. CUYAHOGA COUNTY ) ) SS: AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. HOFSTETTER STATE OF OHIO ) I, John W. Hofstetter, being first duly sworn, depose and state I am of full age. and have personal knowledge of the following facts: 1 I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio, and | am one of the attorneys representing Plaintiff Bevcorp, LLC (“Bevcorp”) in the above matter captioned Bevcorp, LLC v. Christopher M. Ripoll, et al., Case No. 23CV001740, Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio (the “Action”). 2 On February 14, 2024, Bevcorp issued Defendants Steven Rodriguez, Zechary Grant, and Pablo Gilbes Rodriguez (“Defendants”) its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, “Discovery Requests”). Attached as Exhibit | is a true and accurate copy of the courtesy email providing Defendants with electronic copies of the Discovery Requests. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the Discovery Requests served upon Defendants via regular mail. 3 On March 4, 2024, Defendants, through co-defendant Christopher Ripoll’s Texas- based counsel, Elise Miller, requested a fourteen (14) day extension to respond to the Discovery Requests (“First Extension”). Bevcorp granted this extension. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the First Extension. 4 Defendants did not provide any responses to the Discovery Requests by the extended deadline. 5 On March 19, 2024, Defendants’ newly retained counsel. Brian Kelly, requested a twenty-eight (28) day extension to respond to the Discovery Requests. Bevcrop permitted Defendants with another fourteen (14) day extension, until April 10, 2024, to serve their responses to the Discovery Requests (“Second Extension”). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of the Second Extension. 6 On April 5, 2024—5 days before Defendants were to serve responses to the Discovery Requests—Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Docket Entry dated April 5, 2024). Contemporaneous with this filing, Defendants’ counsel requested that Defendants’ responses to the Discovery Requests be held in abeyance indefinitely (“Abeyance Request”). The undersigned informed Defendants’ counsel that Bevcorp would not consent given, inter alia, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss hinges on factual issues, i.e., what activities Defendants engaged in directed toward Ohio, and that Bevcorp is not willing to tie its hands in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of the Abeyance Request. 7 That day, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. (See Docket Entry dated April 5, 2024). 8 On April 10, 2024, the undersigned emailed Defendants’ counsel requesting a meet- and-confer conference (the “Meet and Confer Request”), Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and accurate copy of the Meet and Confer Request. 9 On April 17, 2024, the undersigned and Defendants’ counsel held a meet-and confer telephone conference to discuss resolving the subject discovery dispute (the “Meet and Confer Conference”). 10. During the Meet and Confer Conference, Defendants took the position, consistent with their Motion to Stay, that resolution of the personal jurisdiction issue was necessary before Defendants would respond to the Discovery Requests. Bevcorp explained that resolution of a Rule 12 motion was not a predicate to obtaining discovery against the moving party and, if the rule were otherwise, any party could indefinitely forestall responding to discovery by simply filing a Rule 12 motion. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of the communications exchanged following the Meet and Confer Conference. Il. Following the Meet and Confer Conference, the undersigned then continued to try and work with Defendants’ counsel to resolve this issue without this Court’s intervention. After making it clear that Defendants would not be materially changing their position with respect to the present dispute, Bevcorp was left with no choice but to move forward to seek redress for its rights. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and accurate copy of my follow-up communications trying to resolve this matter without Court intervention. 12. Despite the undersigned’s good faith efforts to resolve the subject dispute, to date, Defendants have refused to provide responses to the Discovery Requests. FURTHER SAYETH AFFIANT NAUGHT. et ay Fofstetter L r”" SWORN TO and subscribed before me this “ day of April 2024. AA. Nota Pabli” ene BRIAL S BRIAN FITZGERALD, \UZ Attorney Notary Public. State of Ohio = My commission has No expiration date. Section 147.03 O.R.C. E'oES EXHIBIT 1 From: Hofstetter, John To: Domozick, Andrew Subject: FW: Chris Ripoll Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:50:32 PM Attachments: image002.ong Fi if Inter ri Rodric rst rogatoi blo odriquez 486 "779 docx 4874~ - Fi forPt =Z 4 3157 1.docx rst st fol ction of Doc ments - 00 do ion of Do nts — ilb do Fi forPr = Mic r 4 1-3: 6213 1 rst Reg rod ion of Do ments - Ch opher M. Ripo 6 09 do nts — Original service From: Hofstetter, John Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:54 PM To: Elise Miller Cc: Laurence Stuart ; Jessica Camarena ; Morley, Ryan Subject: RE: Chris Ripoll Good evening, Elise: Thank you for circling back with us. We have good availability for a follow-up call next Thursday, February 22" in the afternoon EST. Please let us know some time(s) that work for you guys. We will plan on circling back with you on some of the items you raised during our prior call. We would also ask that you be prepared to address some of the items we previously raised, too. In addition, please see the attached courtesy service copies of written discovery mailed out earlier today. Since it is unclear if the other co-defendants are presently represented by counsel, and because we do not wish to improperly engage in ex-parte email communications with those co- defendants, we ask that you please share these electronic copies with those co-defendants, so that they may utilize these electronic versions in formulating their respective responses. Regards, John Hofstetter Attorney at Law 216.623.6094 direct, 216.317.9796 mobile JHofstetter@littler.com Lit ler Fueled by ingenuity. Inspired by you Labor & Employment Law Solutions | Local Everywhere 127 Public Sq, Key Tower, Ste 1600, Cleveland, OH 44114 From: Elise Miller Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:59 PM To: Hofstetter, John ; Morley, Ryan Cc: Laurence Stuart ; Jessica Camarena Subject: Chris Ripoll [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] John and Ryan, | wanted to circle back on this matter. Have you had a chance to discuss any of the issues raised on our last call with your client? We’d like to schedule a follow-up call next week if you have some availability. Please let me know. Thanks, Elise ELISE MILLER STUARTre 629 HeicHrs Buvo. Houston, Texas 77007 (713) 337-3758 orFice (713) 481-6320 Fax emiller@stuartpc.com www. STUARTPC.com EXHIBIT 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO BEVCORP LLC, CASE NO.: 23CV001740 Plaintiff, JUDGE: JOHN P. O’DONNELL V. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF CHRIS RIPOLL, et al., INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT STEVEN RODRIGUEZ Defendants. Plaintiff, Bevcorp LLC (“Bevcorp” or “Plaintiff’), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Steven Rodriguez (“Defendant”). Plaintiff's interrogatories are to be answered fully, in writing, and under oath and are to be served upon Plaintiffs counsel at the law offices of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 1600, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, within twenty-eight days of service. In answering the interrogatories, Defendant is to furnish such information as is available to Defendant, not merely such information that is within Defendant’s own knowledge. Pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), each of the following interrogatories is deemed to be continuing to the date of trial. If Defendant or Defendant’s counsel learns that any response is inaccurate or incomplete, or if an answer becomes incomplete by reason of a development occurring after these answers are signed, Defendant is under an obligation to promptly supplement each inaccurate or incomplete answer. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS > «6, A The terms “you, your,” and “Defendant” refer to Defendant Steven Rodriguez, Defendant’s attorneys, agents, representatives, and/or any other person or entity purporting to act on Defendant’s behalf. B The term “Complaint” refers to the Complaint filed in this action Cc “Documents” includes, without limitation, the original, drafts, or any copies, regardless of origin or location, of any written matter, notes, memoranda, written information, correspondence, print-outs, diaries, photographs, video tapes, audio tapes, information maintained in a computerized database or stored or maintained in any computer memory, computer program, data processing system, diskette, CD, back-up tape, or other storage medium, books, pamphlets, periodicals, letters, calendars, messages, records, studies, invoices, vouchers, checks, statements, charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, blueprints, microfilm, or any other tangible object upon which or within which information is recorded or encoded, to which you have or may have access, and copies or reproductions of any of the above that differ in any respect from the original, such as copies containing marginal notations or other variations. D. “Person” and “persons” shall each mean individuals, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, firms, associations, joint ventures, banks, any government or governmental bodies, commissions, boards or agencies, and all other legal entities, and if appropriate or indicated, divisions, subsidiaries or departments of corporations or persons, and the principals, agents, servants or employees of the aforesaid entities. E The term “identify”: a. When used in reference to a person means to state his or her full name, present or last known residence address, the position(s) of employment held by the person at the time to which the Interrogatory relates and at the present time, the names and addresses of his or her employer(s) at the time to which the Interrogatory relates and at the present time, and the present or last known telephone number at which the person may be reached; When used in reference to a document, means to state the type of document, date, author or addressor, addressee of all copies, recipient of all copies, title, the present location or address of the custodian of all copies, the substance of the content thereof, and form control number, if any, of each copy. In lieu of identifying any particular copy of a document according to the foregoing, a copy thereof may be furnished; When used in reference to a corporation, company, association, partnership, or legal entity other than a natural person means to state its full name, its state of incorporation, its principal place of business, telephone number, and mailing address; When used in reference to an oral communication means to state the date and time when it occurred, the place where it occurred, the complete substance and content of the communication and to identify each person to whom such communication was made, by whom such communication was made, and who was present when such communication was made. If the communication was made by telephone, identify each person who made each telephone call and who participated in each call, identify the place where each person participating in each call was located, and identify all documents relating in any way to the subject matter of the communication; and When used in reference to an act or event means to state to the fullest extent known or ascertainable, the time, date, place and duration of the act or event, to identify each person present at the act or event, and to set forth what was said and done by each person present. F The word “identify,” when used in reference to an expert witness, means to state (a) the expert’s name, address, and occupation; (b) the questions or issues which he/she has been asked to address, to provide an opinion on, or to otherwise assist you on; (c) the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify or otherwise provide an opinion; (d) the substance of all facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify or otherwise provide to you; (e) a summary of the grounds for each opinion of each expert; (f) a list of every case, together with the case number and court, in which each expert has either been retained as an expert and/or testified at trial as an expert, together with a brief description of the type of case within which he/she was an expert; and (g) to identify all documents and/or data relied upon to reach any conclusions or opinions. G. The term “concerning” means relating to, referring to, evidencing or constituting. H. The terms “communicate” and “communication” are defined as every manner or means of disclosure, transfer, or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer, or exchange of information, whether made or accomplished orally or by document, whether face to face, by telephone, mail, telex, facsimile, personal delivery, or otherwise. > «6, I The term “each” shall mean “each,” “every, any,” and “all.” J The term “including” shall mean “including, but not limited to.” K The terms “relating to” and “related to” mean consisting of, identifying, concerning, referring to, alluding to, responding to, in connection with, commenting on, in response to, about, regarding, explaining, discussing, showing, describing, studying, reflecting, analyzing, or constituting. L The word “and” and the word “or” shall be used conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the interrogatories inclusive rather than exclusive. M. The past tense shall include the present tense and vice versa; the word “including” means “including without limitation;” the word “he” or any other masculine pronoun includes any individual regardless of sex and vice versa. N These Interrogatories are intended to cover all information in your possession, custody or control, or the possession, custody, or control of your agents, representatives, employees or attorneys, as well as any and all information within the possession, custody or control of any third party or parties who, upon your request, would surrender possession, custody or control to you. Oo If you do not know the answer to an Interrogatory, identify the person or persons who would be expected to know the answer. P. If you cannot produce certain information or any portion thereof after exercising due diligence to uncover it, so state in writing and produce whatever portion of said information possible, specifying the reason for your inability to produce the information or the remainder thereof and stating whatever knowledge you have concerning the information or the portion thereof you are unable to produce including, but not limited to, the subject matter of such information, or missing portion thereof which was, but is no longer, in your possession, custody or control, and state what disposition was made of it and the reason for such disposition. Q In the event that you file a proper and timely objection to any interrogatory, answer all portions of that interrogatory that does not fall within your objection. For instance, if you object to an interrogatory on the ground that it is too broad because it asks for information concerning years you contend are not relevant to this lawsuit, at least provide an answer for all years you admit are relevant to this lawsuit. R. Regardless of whether any of these interrogatories, instructions, and definitions use a term in the plural or singular form, the term shall be construed in both the singular and plural forms as is necessary to require the most inclusive answer. Ss If you object to the production of any information on the grounds of attorney-client, work product or other privilege, then for such information a. Identify the type and general subject matter of the information; b Briefly state the basis for the claim of privilege including the specific privilege being asserted; and Provide any potion of the information to which the claim of privilege does not apply. T The term “electronic storage device” includes any device capable of storing electronic information, including hard-drives, flash drives, zip drives, thumb drives, DAT, data cartridges, tape back-ups, floppy disks, data CDs, writeable DVDs, and any and all other electronic data storage media. U These Interrogatories are continuing and if, in the future, other or additional information responsive to them is discovered by you, then it should be produced in a timely manner, but in no event later than twenty days after its discovery. Vv. Plaintiff reserves the right to serve additional Interrogatories. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each person whom you know or believe to have information regarding: (a) any of the allegations contained in the Complaint; or (b) your defenses to those allegations. For each such person, describe the nature of such information. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each witness that you intend to call to testify at any hearing or trial in this case: For each such witness, describe that person’s anticipated testimony, as well as what knowledge you believe he/she possesses regarding this case. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify, as set forth in “Instruction F” above, each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify all documents that you intend to introduce as an exhibit at any hearing, deposition, or the trial in this case, as evidence or for use as impeachment. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Excluding your attorneys and their legal staff, identify each person with whom you communicated regarding this lawsuit or the underlying factual allegations in the Complaint. For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion. In addition, identify any statements — tape recorded, typed, or written — concerning facts related to the allegations in the Complaint and identify the person giving each such statement, the date of each such statement, and the subject matter of each such statement. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify each and every electronic computing, communication or data storage device (including, but not limited to computers, hard drives, PDAs, USB devices, cell phones, or hand held devices) that you have either owned or used for personal reasons since January 1, 2023, and that you may have used to create, send, receive, store, or otherwise access documents that are responsive to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production, or related to the allegations contained in the Complaint, or otherwise related to your defenses to the Complaint. For each electronic storage device, please provide the following information: a. The make (e.g. Dell, IBM, Apple) of the electronic storage device; b The model (e.g. Thinkpad, iPad) of the electronic storage device; The year of the electronic storage device; Whether or not the electronic storage device is presently in your possession, custody or control and, if so, the present location of the electronic storage device; Tf the electronic storage device is no longer in your possession, custody or control, the date (month, day and year) upon which the electronic storage device ceased being in your possession, custody or control. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify all work, personal, or cellular phone numbers, e-mail addresses, internet service providers, and internet usernames that you used at any time since January 1, 2023. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify each current or former customer of Bevcorp with whom you have had any contact or communication with since January 1, 2023. For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, and if oral, specify the participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion. If the communication was written, identify the date and substance of the written communication. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify each and every customer (former, current or prospective) of Bevcorp with whom you had any communications from August 1, 2023 to the present about your departure from Bevcorp, future plans, or employment with Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services. For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify each and every communication you had with any employee of Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services from January 1, 2023 to the present regarding Plaintiff, Plaintiffs (current or former) customers, this lawsuit, or any of the allegations reflected in the lawsuit For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify each and every communication you had with any current or former employee of Bevcorp from January 1, 2023 to the present concerning Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services, the termination or potential termination of any employment relationship with Bevcorp by you or the Bevcorp employee, or any agreement between you and Bevcorp. For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each and every third-party with whom you had any communications from January 1, 2023 to the present about your departure from Bevcorp, future plans, and employment with Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services. For each such communication, specify whether it was oral or written, the participants in the conversation, when and where the conversation occurred, who contacted whom, and the topics of discussion. ANSWER: 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify any documents that you have destroyed and/or deleted since January 1, 2023 that would have been responsive to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents served on you. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all Bevcorp business information, files, or property that are within your possession, custody, or control ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all work phone numbers, personal phone numbers, cellular phone numbers, e-mail addresses, Internet storage accounts, Internet usernames, or social networking accounts (including any Facebook account, Twitter account, MySpace account, LinkedIn or other professional networking account, Skype account, Blogger/Blogspot account, iCloud, Dropbox, Slack account or any other page or account created and/or maintained by you on any Internet-based social networking, communication or storage site) that you used at any time since January 1, 2023 and that you may have used to create, send, receive, store, or otherwise access documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production, or related to the allegations contained in the Complaint, or otherwise related to the claims or your defenses. ANSWER 11 Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W. Hofstetter Ryan J. Morley (0077452) John W. Hofstetter (0087731) LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Key Tower, 217 Public Square, Suite 1600 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 696-7600 Fax: (216) 649-0540 Email: rmorley@littler.com jhofstetter@littler.com Counsel for Plaintiff 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Steven Rodriguez was sent via United States Mail on February 14, 2024 to the following: Steven Rodriguez 1938 Mustang Bluff Lane Katy, Texas 77494 Michael Leininger 337 Main Street Delta, PA 17314 Audrey Hiser 3608 Normandy Road Shaker Heights, OH 44120 Zechary Grant 600 NJ-50 Corbin City, NJ 08270 Pablo Gilbes Rodriguez 3022 Panther Drive Lakeland, FL 33812 Elise Miller and Stuart Laurence (Attorneys for Defendants Christopher M. Ripoll and Beverage Consultants LLC, d/b/a First Op Seamer Services) STUART PC 629 Heights Blvd. Houston, TX 77007. /s/ John W. Hofstette: One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff 4853-3337-5909.1 /061577-1219 13 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO BEVCORP LLC, CASE NO.: 23CV001740 Plaintiff, JUDGE: JOHN P. O’DONNELL Vv. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF CHRIS RIPOLL, et al., INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ZECHARY GRANT Defendants. Plaintiff, Bevcorp LLC (“Bevcorp” or “Plaintiff’), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Zechary Grant (“Defendant”). Plaintiff's interrogatories are to be answered fully, in writing, and under oath and are to be served upon Plaintiffs counsel at the law offices of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 1600, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, within twenty-eight days of service. In answering the interrogatories, Defendant is to furnish such information as is available to Defendant, not merely such information that is within Defendant’s own knowledge Pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), each of the following interrogatories is deemed to be continuing to the date of trial. If Defendant or Defendant’s counsel learns that any response is inaccurate or incomplete, or if an answer becomes incomplete by reason of a development occurring after these answers are signed, Defendant is under an obligation to promptly supplement each inaccurate or incomplete answer. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS > «6, A The terms “you, your,” and “Defendant” refer to Defendant Zechary Grant, Defendant’s attorneys, agents, representatives, and/or any other person or entity purporting to act on Defendant’s behalf. B The term “Complaint” refers to the Complaint filed in this action Cc “Documents” includes, without limitation, the original, drafts, or any copies, regardless of origin or location, of any written matter, notes, memoranda, written information, correspondence, print-outs, diaries, photographs, video tapes, audio tapes, information maintained in a computerized database or stored or maintained in any computer memory, computer program, data processing system, diskette, CD, back-up tape, or other storage medium, books, pamphlets, periodicals, letters, calendars, messages, records, studies, invoices, vouchers, checks, statements, charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, blueprints, microfilm, or any other tangible object upon which or within which information is recorded or encoded, to which you have or may have access, and copies or reproductions of any of the above that differ in any respect from the original, such as copies containing marginal notations or other variations. D. “Person” and “persons” shall each mean individuals, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, firms, associations, joint ventures, banks, any government or governmental bodies, commissions, boards or agencies, and all other legal entities, and if appropriate or indicated, divisions, subsidiaries or departments of corporations or persons, and the principals, agents, servants or employees of the aforesaid entities. E The term “identify”: a. When used in reference to a person means to state his or her full name, present or last known residence address, the position(s) of employment held by the person at the time to which the Interrogatory relates and at the present time, the names and addresses of his or her employer(s) at the time to which the Interrogatory relates and at the present time, and the present or last known telephone number at which the person may be reached; When used in reference to a document, means to state the type of document, date, author or addressor, addressee of all copies, recipient of all copies, title, the present location or address of the custodian of all copies, the substance of the content thereof, and form control number, if any, of each copy. In lieu of identifying any particular copy of a document according to the foregoing, a copy thereof may be furnished; When used in reference to a corporation, company, association, partnership, or legal entity other than a natural person means to state its full name, its state of incorporation, its principal place of business, telephone number, and mailing address; When used in reference to an oral communication means to state the date and time when it occurred, the place where it occurred, the complete substance and content of the communication and to identify each person to whom such communication was made, by whom such communication was made, and who was present when such communication was made. If the communication was made by telephone, identify each person who made each telephone ca