Preview
FILED
4/12/2024 3:22 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-17199
INTOUCH CREDIT UNION,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-
DEFENDANT,
vs.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ENGINE REBUILDERS, LLC, ANGEL
DELGADO, MARIA DELGADO, AND
DAVID SILVA,
134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS/COUNTER- §
PLAINTIFFS. §
INTOUCH CREDIT UNION’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, InTouch Credit Union (“InTouch”), pursuant to Tex. R. Civ.
P. 215.1(b)(3), and files this its Motion to Compel Engine Rebuilders’ Discovery
Responses, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
dl This action stems from Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC (“Engine
Rebuilders”) fraudulently obtaining a bonded title for a 2021 Honda Civic Type-R with
vehicle identification number SHHFK8G76MU201431 (“Vehicle”), of which Plaintiff was
the rightful lienholder. InTouch filed suit against the Defendant for tortious interference,
conversion and civil conspiracy.
2 Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 2 discovery-control plan. The
discovery period closes on July 20, 2024.
3 This case is set for a non-jury trial on September 3, 2024.
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 1
4 InTouch requests that the Court compel Engine Rebuilders to properly and
completely respond to discovery so that InTouch may fully and properly present the case
on its merits and properly defend itself against Defendant's counterclaims.
Il. BACKGROUND
5 On January 11, 2024, InTouch served its First Set of Interrogatories, First
Requests for Admissions, and First Requests for Production on Engine Rebuilders (the
“Discovery Requests”) in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21(a) and 21a.
A copy of the Discovery Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6 Defendant timely responded to InTouch’s Discovery Requests on February
5, 2024 (‘Responses’). A copy of the Defendants’ Responses to InTouch’s Interrogatories
is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1. A copy of Defendants’ Responses to InTouch’s
Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit B-2. A copy of Defendants’
produced documents is attached hereto as Exhibit B-3. A copy of Defendants Responses
to InTouch’s Requests for Admission is attached hereto as Exhibit B-4.
7 Although Engine Rebuilders’ Responses were timely served upon counsel
for InTouch, such Responses were incomplete, deficient, and contained a multitude of
improper objections, as more fully detailed below.
8 On March 7, 2024, InTouch’s counsel sent detailed correspondence to
counsel for Engine Rebuilders detailing the incomplete responses, deficiencies, and
improper objections. The correspondence also requested a telephone conference to meet
and confer regarding Defendants’ Responses (“Deficiency Letter”). A true and correct
copy such correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 2
9 Receiving no response, InTouch’s counsel contacted Engine Rebuilders’
counsel on March 11, 2024, by email to follow up on a time to meet and confer regarding
the Deficiency Letter. A true and correct copy of such correspondence is attached hereto
as Exhibit C-1.
10. Again, receiving no response, on March 13, 2024, InTouch; counsel again
followed up with Engine Rebuilders’ counsel requesting his availability to meet and confer
regarding the Deficiency Letter. A true and correct copy such correspondence is attached
hereto as Exhibit C-1.
11. On March 14, 2024, Engine Rebuilders’ counsel generally responded to
limited portions of the Deficiency Letter and dismissed InTouch’s concerns. A true and
orrect copy that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C-2.
12. On March 18, 2024 and March 20, 2024, InTouch’ counsel again contacted
Engine Rebuilders’ counsel requesting availability to meet and confer regarding the
discovery deficiencies and objections. A true and correct copy that correspondence is
attached hereto as Exhibit C-2.
13. At the end of the day on March 20, 2024, Engine Rebuilders’ Counsel
responds that he has already responded in writing and will not be removing any
objections. On March 25, 2024, InTouch’s counsel replied to such correspondence to
confirm that Engine Rebuilder’s counsel is refusing to discuss the deficiencies over the
phone and is unwilling to amend any of the responses or remove objections. Counsel for
InTouch followed up with counsel for Engine Rebuilders regarding his discovery concerns
again on April 4, 2024.On April 5, 2024, InTouch’s Counsel followed up for the last time
regarding at a bare minimum to receive Engine Rebuilder’s verification to its responses
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 3
to InTouch’s Interrogatories. See Exhibit C-2. As of the date of filing this Motion, counsel
for Engine Rebuilders has not responded to InTouch’s March 25, 2024, April 4, 2024 or
April 5, 2024 correspondence.
14. As Engine Rebuilders’ counsel has failed to respond with his availability to
hold a proper meet and confer and refuses to resolve the discovery deficiencies and
withdraw boilerplate objections, InTouch seeks an Order from this Court requiring Engine
Rebuilders to properly and completely respond to its discovery requests.
15. If Defendant is not Ordered to completely and appropriately respond to
InTouch’s discovery and remove improper objections, InTouch will be drastically
prejudiced throughout the remainder of discovery, in conducting Defendants’ and third-
party depositions, preparing any dispositive motions and at trial.
Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW
16. The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth so disputes may be decided
by what facts are revealed, not by what facts are concealed. Axelson v. Mcllhany, 789
S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). A party may seek discovery of any matter that is relevant
to the subject matter and proportional to the needs of its case. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
192.3(a), 192.4(b); In re Turner, 591 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. 2019); In re State Farm
Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 607 (Tex. 2017). Discovery can include evidence that may be
inadmissible as long as it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a).
17. Rule 215.1(b) empowers the Court to compel discovery responses. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 215.1(b).
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 4
18. A court may compel a party to respond adequately to interrogatories and
request for production. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b)(3); Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(c)
19. A party seeking discovery in the face of objections may use either rule to
obtain the requested discovery. /n re Marriage of Bivins, 393 S.W.3d 893, 902 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2012, pet. denied). The party asserting the objection has the burden of
presenting “any evidence necessary to support the objection.” In re Fisher & Paykel
Appliances, Inc., 420 S.W.3d 842, 847 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (citing Tex. R.
Civ. P. 193.4(a)).
20. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4 permits any party to request a hearing
on an objection asserted in discovery responses. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a).
IV. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
21. InTouch served Engine Rebuilders with proper discovery and has the right
to appropriate responses that are free from improper objections. Engine Rebuilders failed
to completely and adequately respond to InTouch’s discovery requests. The Court should
compel Engine Rebuilders to amend their responses to prevent the unfair prejudice that
would occur moving forward and ultimately at trial.
A. ENGINE REBUILDERS’ ANSWERS TO INTOUCH’S INTERROGATORY
22. Defendant has failed to properly and completely answer InTouch’s First Set
of Interrogatories as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.1 and failed to verify
their responses as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.2(d). See Exhibit B-
1
23. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.1 permits a party to serve contention
interrogatories to “inquire whether a party makes a specific legal or factual contention and
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 5
may ask the responding party to state the legal theories and to describe the general
factual bases for the party’s claims or defenses.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1; see TEX. R.
Civ. P. 192.3(j).
1 ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO
INTOUCH’s DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS.
24 Defendant's first objects to INTouch’s Definitions as follows:
Defendant Tubre objects to the “Definitions & “Instructions,”
provisions of Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories in their
entirety as same are vague, global, ambiguous, overly
burdensome, and harassing. The “Definitions” provision is
also objectionable as same places obligations and
requirements on the Defendant which are far beyond the
scope of Rules 192, 196 and/or 197 TRCP and therefore,
impermissible. That is particularly true of the “action,”
“litigation,” “vehicle,” “Identify,” “Individual” &
“Communication.” Plaintiffs definitions are not the legal
definitions of those terms and not found in the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure. Therefore, said requirements and obligations
are objectionable and will not be followed in these discovery
responses.
See Exhibit B-1.
25. Here, Engine Rebuilders initially responds by hiding behind boiler plate
objections which have not been tailored to the specific Interrogatory propounded by
InTouch. Rather he inserts his generic objections to InTouch’s Definitions & Instructions
by referring to an entity named “Tubre” instead of Engine Rebuilders. Engine Rebuilders
contends that InTouch’s Definitions and Instructions are vague, global, ambiguous, overly
burdensome, and harassing without providing the required factual basis describing why
Engine Rebuilders is refusing to comply. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.2(a). Engine Rebuilders
cites Rule 192 and 197 without a specific section reference making it unclear the legal
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 6
basis for their objection. Engine Rebuilders further includes an irrelevant and overly broad
reference to Rule 196 which governs Requests for Production and not Interrogatories.
26. Engine Rebuilders then asserts that definitions in discovery must use “legal
definitions” or definitions found in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which is not true.
InTouch prepared the “definitions” in an effort to clarify any ambiguities that Engine
Rebuilders may encounter when responding. Therefore, Defendant should be required to
remove their boiler plate objections to InTouch’s definitions.
ii. THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE ENGINE REBUILDERS OBJECTIONS TO
INTERROGATORY NO. 1 AND COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS TO ANSWER FULLY.
27. Defendant fails to provide any answer to the following interrogatory and only
objects to following questions:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify Angel Delago’s young daughter, who is
referred to in the Affidavit of David Silva.
RESPONSE: Co-Defendant “E.R.” objects to this Interrogatory as it is an
improper invasion of the daughter's privacy rights as the daughter is not a
party to this lawsuit. Without waiving those objections, see Defendants’
Disclosure Responses on this topic that are incorporated herein by
reference in their entirety.
28. InTouch’s Interrogatory is not an invasion of any individual's privacy rights.
David Silva identified “Angel Delgado’s daughter” as an agent or at least a key actor for
Engine Rebuilders when he says in his affidavit, “Angel Delgado’s young daughter (who
apparently had no prior dealings with obtaining a vehicle Title) went to the DMV and was
instructed by the DMV & bond company on how to obtain a Title. The daughter did exactly
as the DMV & bonding company instructed her to do.” This unnamed individual clearly
has relevant facts to this case as she purportedly is the only one that physically engaged
in the application for bonded title which is the basis of several of InTouch’s legal theories.
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 7
29. Furthermore, Engine Rebuilders refers to their Disclosure Reponses which
do not fully identify the individual. InTouch defined “identify” to mean providing the name,
address, and phone number of the specified individual. Engine Rebuilders in its
disclosures does not identify which individual is Angel Delgado’s daughter. Assuming the
daughter is an individual named Jackie per Engine Rebuilder disclosures, a phone
number is not listed for that individual and the address listed is the physical address of
dQ”
Engine Rebuilders which is certainly not “Angel Delgado’s young daughter's” address.
Therefore, the Court should overrule Engine Rebuilders’ objections and compel a
complete answer to this Interrogatory and provide InTouch with a properly executed
verification for same.
B. ENGINE REBUILDERS’ ANSWERS TO INTOUCH’S REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION
30. Engine Rebuilders fails to properly respond to InTouch’s First Requests for
Production as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196 and produces only six (6)
pages of allegedly responsive documents. See Exhibit B-3.
1 ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO
INTOUCH’s DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS.
31 Defendants first object to InTouch’s Definitions as follows:
“ER?
Co-Defendant objects to the “Definitions &
“Instructions,” provisions of Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Interrogatories in their entirety as same are vague, global,
ambiguous, overly burdensome, and harassing. The
“Definitions” provision is also objectionable as same places
obligations and requirements on the Defendant which are far
beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196 and/or 197 TRCP and
therefore, impermissible. That is particularly true of the
“Action,” “Litigation,” “Vehicle,” “Communications,”
“Document” and “Statements sub-sections of those
definitions. Plaintiffs definitions are not the legal definitions of
those terms and not found in the Texas Rules of Civil
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 8
Procedure. Therefore, said requirements and obligations are
objectionable and will not be followed in these discovery
responses.
See Exhibit B-2.
32. Here, Engine Rebuilders continues to hide behind boiler plate objections
which have not been tailored to the specific requests from InTouch. Defendant does not
specify which instruction is objectionable and why. Defendant asserts that InTouch places
an obligation beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196, and/or 197 without any explanation or
a willingness to confer.
33. Engine Rebuilders again asserts that definitions in discovery must use
“legal definitions” of words or be defined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which is
unfounded. InTouch prepared the “definitions” in an effort to clarify any ambiguities that
Engine Rebuilders may encounter when responding. Defendant should be required to
remove the boiler plate objections to InTouch’s definitions and instructions.
ii. THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE ENGINE REBUILDERS’ OBJECTIONS TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Nos. 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21,27 AND 28 AND COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN ENGINE REBUILDERS’ POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR
CONTROL.
34. Request for Production No. 10 seeks all notes or other writings or
recordings (such as diaries, calendars, journals, photographs, text messages, other
electronic communications or recordings, and social media posts) you made relating to
any of the allegations in this Litigation. Exhibit B-2. Request No. 12 seeks all
communications between you and InTouch regarding this Litigation. /d. Request No. 14
seeks all internal communications regarding the Vehicle. /d. Request No. 15 seeks all
internal communications regarding the Litigation. /d. Request No. 19 seeks all
communications between Engine Rebuilders and Angel Delgado’s young daughter,
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 9
referred to in the Affidavit of David Silva, regarding the Vehicle. /d. Request No. 21 seeks
all communications between Engine Rebuilders and any potential buyers of the Vehicle.
Id. Request No. 27 seeks all notes or other writings or recordings (such as diaries,
calendars, journals, photographs, text messages, other electronic communications or
recordings, and social media posts) you made relating to any of the defenses in this
Litigation. /d. Request No. 28 seeks to produce any notes, documents, or correspondence
regarding the Vehicle.
35. Defendant responds to each of the forementioned requests identically as
follows:
Co-Defendant “E.R.” objects to these Requests for the
reason that same seek information/documentation which is
irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this lawsuit and is
not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Also objectionable as they seek documents that
violate the privacy rights of third parties who have no
connection to this lawsuit. Defendant “E.R.,” without waiving
the foregoing objection, further objects to these Requests for
the reason that same is overly broad, harassing, unduly
burdensome and seeks documents that are exempt from
discovery under the attorney-client privilege party
communication — investigative privilege and work product
exemption. As of this date, “E.R.’s” Counsel has not made a
decision as to which Trial Exhibits will be offered into
evidence at the Jury Trial. Defendant “E.R.”, without waiving
the foregoing objections, further objects to these Requests as
they constitutes nothing more than a “fishing expedition”.
Without waiving those objections, see “E.R.’s” Trial Exhibits
that have already been produced and are incorporated herein
by reference.
Id.
36. Engine Rebuilders continuously attempts to hide behind boiler plate
objections. The information being requested is relevant because each Request is tailored
specifically to Engine Rebuilders’ actions as they relate to the Vehicle from the date the
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PaGE 10
Vehicle arrived at Engine Rebuilders until the date of filing this lawsuit. InTouch is of the
reasonable belief that Engine Rebuilders has documents in their possession, custody, or
control, such as and at the minimum, the application for bonded title, video surveillance
to confirm InTouch’s arrival to Engine Rebuilders, communications between Engine
Rebuilders and Angel Delgado’s daughter who went to the DMV to apply for the bonded
title, agreements between Engine Rebuilders and the storage facilities where the Vehicle
has allegedly been kept and is allegedly incurring storage fees. See GTE
Communications Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tex.1993) (‘The phrase,
“possession, custody or control”, within the meaning of this rule, includes not only actual
physical possession, but constructive possession, and the right to obtain possession from
a third party, such as an agent or representative. The right to obtain possession is a legal
right based upon the relationship between the party from whom a document is sought
and the person who has actual possession of it.”). It is without a doubt that additional
documents are available to Engine Rebuilders, yet they choose either not to take
possession or simply not to produce them.
37. Engine Rebuilders asserts without explanation that InTouch’s Requests
violate the privacy rights of third parties. The documents being requested are about
Engine Rebuilders, InTouch, and a “responsible third-party defendant Jose Guerra
Arteaga” as they relate to the Vehicle. If it is Engine Rebuilders’ position that the third
party whose rights are being violated is Angel Delgado’s young daughter this illustrates
Engine Rebuilders’ bad faith. Engine Rebuilders intentionally enlisted a minor family
member to fraudulently apply for a bonded title on its behalf. This critical fact is essential
to most if not all of InTouch’s legal theories. Engine Rebuilders should not be rewarded
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES Pace 11
for convincing a minor family member to fraudulently apply for a bonded title and then be
allowed to hide behind frivolous objections, refusing to answer any questions regarding
such person or the facts surrounding her actions. InTouch’s Requests hardly qualify as a
“fishing expedition.” Moreover, InTouch’s Requests are not overbroad because they are
narrowly tailored in time from June 1, 2022 (the day the Vehicle was dropped off), to
present per Instruction #5.”
38. None of InTouch’s Requests seek privileged information. If there are
responsive documents that are privileged, pursuant to Rule 193.3, Engine Rebuilders
must: (1) describes the information or materials withheld that, without revealing the
privileged information itself or otherwise waiving the privilege, enables other parties to
assess the applicability of the privilege, and (2) asserts a specific privilege for each item
or group of items withheld.
iii. ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS
RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 IN ITS POSSESSION,
CUSTODY, OR CONTROL.
39. Request for Production No. 25 seeks a copy of the bonded title for the
Vehicle. Exhibit A. Defendant responds, “[s]ee the previously produced ‘E.R.’s Trial
Exhibits Nos. 1-7 that are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.” Exhibit B-
2. On December 22, 2023, Engine Rebuilders filed said list of trial exhibits which did not
include documents. Exhibit B-5. However, it was not until March 20, 2024, when Engine
Rebuilders finally responded to repeated requests for documents but produced only six
pages. It is uncontested that Defendant applied for a bonded title on the Vehicle. The only
document that they provided was a receipt and not the application itself, much less a copy
of the actual bonded title. In order to apply for a bonded title, the applicant must provide
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 12
a photo ID, statement of fact for bonded title, proof of rightful ownership of vehicle, a bill
of sale for the vehicle, an invoice for the vehicle cost, a copy of a check used to purchase
the vehicle. Plaintiff refuses to produce any of these documents. See Bought a Vehicle
Without A Title?, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MoTOR VEHICLES,
https://www.txdmv.gov/motorists/buying-or-selling-a-vehicle/bought-a-vehicle-with-no-
title. Even if the application (same with all the other docs mentioned above) is not in
Engine Rebuilder’s current “possession” it has custody and has the ability to obtain and
provide a copy of the application since it is in Engine Rebuilders’ control. See Tanner,
856 S.W.2d at 729. Therefore, Engine Rebuilders should be compelled to produce all
documents responsive to this Request whether it currently has physical possession of
such documents or not. Engine Rebuilders has custody and control of such documents,
and it should have done what was necessary to produce such documents within the thirty
days it had to respond to InTouch’s Request. Such Request was served over four months
ago, which is more than ample time to obtain the requested documents.
C. ENGINE REBUILDERS’ ANSWERS TO INTOUCH’S REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
40. Defendant has failed to properly answer InTouch’s First Set of Requests for
Admissions as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 198.2. See Exhibit B-4.
41. Requests for admissions are often used to prove the genuineness of
documents and may be used to ask a party to admit an opinion or fact or the application
of law to facts. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.1. However, requests for admissions cannot be used
to ask a party to admit a conclusion of law. Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 13
42. To appropriately respond to Requests for Admissions, the answer must be
made in writing. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(a). Each answer, objection, or other response must
be preceded by the request it applies to. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1. The response to the
requests for admission must be signed by the attorney (or party when pro se). Tex. R.
Civ. P. 191.3(a); see, e.g., In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583, 588-89 (Tex.App.—
Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (unsigned responses treated as failure to respond; requests
were deemed admitted); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.3(d) (unsigned response must be
struck unless failure to sign is corrected). The response to a request for admissions must
(1) admit, (2) specifically deny, (3) set out in detail the reasons why the answering party
cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter, (4) object, (5) assert a privilege, or (6) move
for a protective order. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b) (responses 1-5); see Reynolds v. Murphy,
188 S.W.3d 252, 260-61 (Tex .App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (response 6).
1 ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR GENERAL
OBJECTIONS.
43. Defendant again hides behind a general objection to all of InTouch’s
Requests for Admission.
This Defendant objects to all of the Plaintiffs Requests for
Admission as same violates 74 years of Texas case law as to
how RFA are to be used. In Sanders, the Texas Supreme
Court made the following observation about RFA: “The
primary purpose of the rule is to simplify trial by eliminating
matters about which there is no real controversy, but which
may be difficult or expensive to prove. It was never intended
to be used as a demand upon...a Defendant to admit that he
had no..ground of defense [Emphasis theirs]” Sanders _v.
Harder, 227 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex. 1950). Furthermore, RFA
are not to be used to prevent litigants from presenting the truth
to the trier
of fact. Bynum v. Shatto, 514 S.W.2d 808,811 (Tex.
App. - Corpus Christi, writ refd n.r.e.). Precisely what the
Plaintiffs improper RFA seek to do.
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES Pace 14
Exhibit B-2.
44. Here, Engine Rebuilders does not explain how or why they believe
InTouch’s factual Requests for Admission allegedly “violate 74 years of Texas law.”
InTouch’s Requests are each tailored to prove facts which should not be in controversy.
However, Engine Rebuilders has itself manufactured controversy with its evasive
responses. The requests are not presented to ask Engine Rebuilders to admit that they
have no ground of defense nor or they being used to prevent Engine Rebuilders from
presenting truth to the trier of fact. The purpose and scope of InTouch’s Requests are
solely to eliminate matters which should not have controversy. As such, Engine
Rebuilders should be compelled to withdraw this frivolous objection.
ii. ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO
INToUCH’s DEFINITIONS.
45. Then Engine Rebuilders generally objects to InTouch’s definitions.
‘EoR”
Co-Defendant objects to the ‘Definitions &
“Instructions,” provisions of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission
in their entirety as same are vague, global, ambiguous, overly
burdensome, and harassing. The “Definitions” provision is
also objectionable as same _ places obligations and
requirements on the Defendant which are far beyond the
scope of Rules 192, 196 and/or 197 TRCP and therefore,
impermissible. The Plaintiffs definitions are not the legal
definition of those terms and not found in the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure. Therefore, said requirements and obligations
are objectionable and will not be followed in these discovery
responses.
Exhibit B-2.
46. Here, Engine Rebuilders continues to hide behind boiler plate objections
which have not been tailored to the specific requests from InTouch. Defendant does not
specify which instruction is objectionable and why. Defendant asserts that InTouch places
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 15
an obligation beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196, and/or 197 without any explanation or
a willingness to confer.
47. Engine Rebuilders again asserts that definitions in discovery must use
“legal definitions” of words or be defined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which is
unfounded. InTouch prepared the “definitions” in an effort to clarify any ambiguities that
Engine Rebuilders may encounter when responding. Defendant should be required to
remove the boiler plate objections to InTouch’s definitions and instructions.
ii. ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS
AND EITHER ADMIT OR DENY REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Nos. 30, 33, 34, 38,
43,44, 45
48. Request for Admission No. 30 asks to admit that You never permitted a
representative of InTouch to inspect the Vehicle. Exhibit A. Request No. 33 asks to admit
that the Notice of Intention to File Mechanic’s Lien for the Vehicle did not include a work
order signed by Jose Roberto Guerra Arteaga. /d. Request No. 34 asks to admit that the
Notice of Intention to File Mechanic’s Lien for the Vehicle did not contain a proposed date
of sale. Id. Request No. 38 asks to admit that You would not simultaneously release the
Vehicle to InTouch if InTouch provided a credit card or cashier's check payment in
exchange for the Vehicle. /d. Request No. 43 asks to admit that You were aware that
InTouch was the lienholder on the Vehicle before July 22, 2023. /d. Request No. 44 asks
to admit that the first time You contacted InTouch regarding the Vehicle was January 24,
2023. Id. Request No. 45 asks to admit that You applied for a bonded title for the Vehicle
on or before July 22, 2023. /d.
49. Defendant responds to each of the forementioned requests identically as
follows:
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 16
Defendant “ER” objects to all the above-referenced Requests
For Admission as they are repetious, multiple duplicates,
harassing and subject to Rule 215 sanctions. In addition,.
Defendant “E.R.” objects to all of the above-referenced
Requests For Admissions as they deal with topics that are
irrelevant to any of the Plaintiffs causes of action and could
never lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without
waiving those objections, Admit.
See Exhibit B-4.
50. First, InTouch acknowledges due to a clerical error several of InTouch’s
Requests for Admissions were duplicative. Upon notice of the error, InTouch immediately
withdrew the duplicative Requests. InTouch’s Requests for Admissions all deal with topics
that are relevant to InTouch’s claim as well as InTouch’s defense to Engine Rebuilders’
counterclaims. The ability to inspect the vehicle, Engine Rebuilders’ application for a
bonded title, terms to the alleged agreement between Engine Rebuilders and InTouch
are all central questions which shed light on necessary facts. Engine Rebuilders again
does not tailor or specify how these requests are harassing because they all go to facts
plead in InTouch’s Original Petition. Therefore, Engine Rebuilders must be compelled to
remove their objection and respond as “admitted.”
V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
51. InTouch requests that the Court grant InTouch its reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 215.1(d).
MacDonald Devin, PC v. Rice, No. 05-14-00938-CV, 2015 WL 6468188, at *4 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Oct. 27, 2015, no pet.). Rule 215.1(d) states that if a motion to compel
pursuant to Rule 215 is granted “the court shall ... require a party ... whose conduct
necessitated the motion ... to pay ... the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred
in obtaining the order, including attorney fees[.]” Tex. R. Civ. P. 215(d). InTouch made
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 17
multiple attempts to work with Engine Rebuilders to avoid the necessity of judicial
intervention, but Engine Rebuilders has refused to engage in a proper meet and confer
to attempt to resolve the discovery disputes and intentionally failed to respond or correct
the deficiencies in its Discovery Responses.
52. Because Engine Rebuilder’s conduct resulted in the necessity that InTouch
prepare and file this Motion, an award of fees and expenses is warranted. InTouch
requests an award of its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in preparing this Motion
and attending and participating in the hearing thereon. InTouch will provide an attorney's
fee affidavit prior to the hearing on this Motion.
Vi. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, InTouch Credit Union,
respectfully requests that the Court set this Motion to Compel for hearing at its earliest
convenience and after hearing argument and evidence from the parties, grant the relief
requested herein, attorney’s fees and costs, and such other and further relief, both at law
and in equity, to which it may be justly entitled.
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 18
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Amanda Loughmiller
AMANDA LOUGHMILLER
State Bar No. 24028042
SAMIN AGHA
State Bar No. 24110989
QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS,
WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C.
6900 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 800
Plano, Texas 75024
(214) 560-5455- Telephone
(214) 871-2111- Facsimile
loughmillert slwm.com
agha@aqslwm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIF
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a
conference vie electronic mail between March 7, 2024, and April 5, 2024, at which movant
attempted to substantively discuss every item presented to the Court but, respondent has
refused to fully engage, despite best efforts the parties have not been able to resolve the
matters presented.
/s/ Samin Agha
Samin Agha
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| hereby certify that on this the 12th day of April 2024, a true and correct copy of
the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to all parties in accordance with
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
Gregory Alan Scott
gscott@gscottlaw.com
The Scott Law Firm
P.O. Box 560664
Dallas, TX 75356
(214) 951-9292
(214) 951-9495 Fax
Counsel for Plaintiff
/s/ Amanda Loughmiller
AMANDA LOUGHMILLER
MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 20
EXHIBIT A
OuALING SELANOER LOWNOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS,
Direct: (214) 560-5455
AMANDA LOUGHMILLER 6900 N. DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 800
Main: (214) 871-2100
al loughm @gsiwm.com PLANO, TEXAS 75024
Fax: (214) 871-2111
January 11, 2024
VIA EMAIL
Gregory Alan Scott
gscott@gscottlaw.com
The Scott Law Firm
P.O, Box 560664
Dallas, TX 75356
Re: InTouch Credit Union vs. Engine Rebuilders, et al; Cause No. DC-23-17199;
134" Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Counsel,
Regarding the above referenced matter, enclosed please find the following:
1 Plaintiff InTouch Credit Union’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC;
2. Plaintiff InTouch Credit Union’s First Request for Admissions to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC;
and
5 Plaintiff InTouch Credit Union’s First Request for Production to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
;
Amanda Loughmiller
Enclosures
CAUSE NO. DC-23-17199
INTOUCH CREDIT UNION, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ENGINE REBUILDERS, LLC, ANGEL §
DELGADO, MARIA DELGADO, AND DAVID §
SILVA, §
§
DEFENDANTS. § 13474 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF INTOUCH CREDIT UNION’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ENGINE REBUILDERS, LLC
TO: Engine Rebuilders, LLC, by and through Defendants’ attorney of record, Gregory
Alan Scott, The Scott Law Firm, P.O. Box 560664, Dallas, TX 75356.
COMES NOW, InTouch Credit Union (‘Plaintiff’), Plaintiff in the above-entitled
and numbered cause and serves this its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Engine
Rebuilders, LLC (“Engine Rebuilders” or “Defendant’). Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure (‘TRCP”) 197.2(a), Defendant shall answer and respond to these
Interrogatories within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff demands that Defendant comply with
TRCP 197.1 by furnishing not only such information in answering these Interrogatories
as Defendant has personally, but also such information as is available to Defendant or
to her attorneys, agents, and/or representatives.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
The following definitions shall apply to InTouch Credit Union's First Set of
Interrogatories:
4
“You,” “your” or “Defendant” means Defendant Engine Rebuilders,
LLC, its subsidiaries, divisions, predecessor and successor companies, affiliates,
6789611.1
parents, any partnership or joint venture to which it may be a party, and/or each of its
employees, agents, officers, directors, representatives, consultants, accountants,
including any person who served in any such capacity at any time during the relevant
time period specified herein.
2 “Plaintiff or “ITCU” means InTouch Credit Union and its employees,
agents, or representatives.
3 “Arteaga” or “Member” means Jose Roberto Guerra Arteaga.
4 “Action” or “Litigation” means the litigation pending in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, 134th Judicial District, captioned InTouch Credit Union v. Engine
Rebuilders, LLC, et al, Cause No. DC-23-17199
o ‘Vehicle’ is defined as the 2021 Honda Civic Type-R with vehicle
identification number SHHFK8G76MU201431.
»
6 “Parties” mean the terms “plaintiff(s) and “defendant(s)” as well as a
party’s full or abbreviated name or pronoun referring to a party means the party and,
where applicable, its officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent,
subsidiaries or affiliates. This definition is not intended to impose a discovery obligation
on any person who is not a party to the litigation.
i “Person” means any natural person, individual, partnership, corporation,
trust, estate, cooperative, association, business, legal or government entity,
governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity.
Preview
FILED 4/12/2024 3:22 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-17199 INTOUCH CREDIT UNION, IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF/COUNTER- DEFENDANT, vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ENGINE REBUILDERS, LLC, ANGEL DELGADO, MARIA DELGADO, AND DAVID SILVA, 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS/COUNTER- § PLAINTIFFS. § INTOUCH CREDIT UNION’S MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff, InTouch Credit Union (“InTouch”), pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b)(3), and files this its Motion to Compel Engine Rebuilders’ Discovery Responses, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION dl This action stems from Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC (“Engine Rebuilders”) fraudulently obtaining a bonded title for a 2021 Honda Civic Type-R with vehicle identification number SHHFK8G76MU201431 (“Vehicle”), of which Plaintiff was the rightful lienholder. InTouch filed suit against the Defendant for tortious interference, conversion and civil conspiracy. 2 Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 2 discovery-control plan. The discovery period closes on July 20, 2024. 3 This case is set for a non-jury trial on September 3, 2024. MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 1 4 InTouch requests that the Court compel Engine Rebuilders to properly and completely respond to discovery so that InTouch may fully and properly present the case on its merits and properly defend itself against Defendant's counterclaims. Il. BACKGROUND 5 On January 11, 2024, InTouch served its First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Admissions, and First Requests for Production on Engine Rebuilders (the “Discovery Requests”) in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21(a) and 21a. A copy of the Discovery Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 Defendant timely responded to InTouch’s Discovery Requests on February 5, 2024 (‘Responses’). A copy of the Defendants’ Responses to InTouch’s Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1. A copy of Defendants’ Responses to InTouch’s Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit B-2. A copy of Defendants’ produced documents is attached hereto as Exhibit B-3. A copy of Defendants Responses to InTouch’s Requests for Admission is attached hereto as Exhibit B-4. 7 Although Engine Rebuilders’ Responses were timely served upon counsel for InTouch, such Responses were incomplete, deficient, and contained a multitude of improper objections, as more fully detailed below. 8 On March 7, 2024, InTouch’s counsel sent detailed correspondence to counsel for Engine Rebuilders detailing the incomplete responses, deficiencies, and improper objections. The correspondence also requested a telephone conference to meet and confer regarding Defendants’ Responses (“Deficiency Letter”). A true and correct copy such correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C. MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 2 9 Receiving no response, InTouch’s counsel contacted Engine Rebuilders’ counsel on March 11, 2024, by email to follow up on a time to meet and confer regarding the Deficiency Letter. A true and correct copy of such correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C-1. 10. Again, receiving no response, on March 13, 2024, InTouch; counsel again followed up with Engine Rebuilders’ counsel requesting his availability to meet and confer regarding the Deficiency Letter. A true and correct copy such correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C-1. 11. On March 14, 2024, Engine Rebuilders’ counsel generally responded to limited portions of the Deficiency Letter and dismissed InTouch’s concerns. A true and orrect copy that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C-2. 12. On March 18, 2024 and March 20, 2024, InTouch’ counsel again contacted Engine Rebuilders’ counsel requesting availability to meet and confer regarding the discovery deficiencies and objections. A true and correct copy that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C-2. 13. At the end of the day on March 20, 2024, Engine Rebuilders’ Counsel responds that he has already responded in writing and will not be removing any objections. On March 25, 2024, InTouch’s counsel replied to such correspondence to confirm that Engine Rebuilder’s counsel is refusing to discuss the deficiencies over the phone and is unwilling to amend any of the responses or remove objections. Counsel for InTouch followed up with counsel for Engine Rebuilders regarding his discovery concerns again on April 4, 2024.On April 5, 2024, InTouch’s Counsel followed up for the last time regarding at a bare minimum to receive Engine Rebuilder’s verification to its responses MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 3 to InTouch’s Interrogatories. See Exhibit C-2. As of the date of filing this Motion, counsel for Engine Rebuilders has not responded to InTouch’s March 25, 2024, April 4, 2024 or April 5, 2024 correspondence. 14. As Engine Rebuilders’ counsel has failed to respond with his availability to hold a proper meet and confer and refuses to resolve the discovery deficiencies and withdraw boilerplate objections, InTouch seeks an Order from this Court requiring Engine Rebuilders to properly and completely respond to its discovery requests. 15. If Defendant is not Ordered to completely and appropriately respond to InTouch’s discovery and remove improper objections, InTouch will be drastically prejudiced throughout the remainder of discovery, in conducting Defendants’ and third- party depositions, preparing any dispositive motions and at trial. Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW 16. The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth so disputes may be decided by what facts are revealed, not by what facts are concealed. Axelson v. Mcllhany, 789 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). A party may seek discovery of any matter that is relevant to the subject matter and proportional to the needs of its case. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a), 192.4(b); In re Turner, 591 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. 2019); In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 607 (Tex. 2017). Discovery can include evidence that may be inadmissible as long as it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). 17. Rule 215.1(b) empowers the Court to compel discovery responses. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b). MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 4 18. A court may compel a party to respond adequately to interrogatories and request for production. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b)(3); Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(c) 19. A party seeking discovery in the face of objections may use either rule to obtain the requested discovery. /n re Marriage of Bivins, 393 S.W.3d 893, 902 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, pet. denied). The party asserting the objection has the burden of presenting “any evidence necessary to support the objection.” In re Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., 420 S.W.3d 842, 847 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)). 20. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4 permits any party to request a hearing on an objection asserted in discovery responses. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a). IV. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 21. InTouch served Engine Rebuilders with proper discovery and has the right to appropriate responses that are free from improper objections. Engine Rebuilders failed to completely and adequately respond to InTouch’s discovery requests. The Court should compel Engine Rebuilders to amend their responses to prevent the unfair prejudice that would occur moving forward and ultimately at trial. A. ENGINE REBUILDERS’ ANSWERS TO INTOUCH’S INTERROGATORY 22. Defendant has failed to properly and completely answer InTouch’s First Set of Interrogatories as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.1 and failed to verify their responses as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.2(d). See Exhibit B- 1 23. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.1 permits a party to serve contention interrogatories to “inquire whether a party makes a specific legal or factual contention and MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 5 may ask the responding party to state the legal theories and to describe the general factual bases for the party’s claims or defenses.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.1; see TEX. R. Civ. P. 192.3(j). 1 ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO INTOUCH’s DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS. 24 Defendant's first objects to INTouch’s Definitions as follows: Defendant Tubre objects to the “Definitions & “Instructions,” provisions of Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories in their entirety as same are vague, global, ambiguous, overly burdensome, and harassing. The “Definitions” provision is also objectionable as same places obligations and requirements on the Defendant which are far beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196 and/or 197 TRCP and therefore, impermissible. That is particularly true of the “action,” “litigation,” “vehicle,” “Identify,” “Individual” & “Communication.” Plaintiffs definitions are not the legal definitions of those terms and not found in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, said requirements and obligations are objectionable and will not be followed in these discovery responses. See Exhibit B-1. 25. Here, Engine Rebuilders initially responds by hiding behind boiler plate objections which have not been tailored to the specific Interrogatory propounded by InTouch. Rather he inserts his generic objections to InTouch’s Definitions & Instructions by referring to an entity named “Tubre” instead of Engine Rebuilders. Engine Rebuilders contends that InTouch’s Definitions and Instructions are vague, global, ambiguous, overly burdensome, and harassing without providing the required factual basis describing why Engine Rebuilders is refusing to comply. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.2(a). Engine Rebuilders cites Rule 192 and 197 without a specific section reference making it unclear the legal MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 6 basis for their objection. Engine Rebuilders further includes an irrelevant and overly broad reference to Rule 196 which governs Requests for Production and not Interrogatories. 26. Engine Rebuilders then asserts that definitions in discovery must use “legal definitions” or definitions found in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which is not true. InTouch prepared the “definitions” in an effort to clarify any ambiguities that Engine Rebuilders may encounter when responding. Therefore, Defendant should be required to remove their boiler plate objections to InTouch’s definitions. ii. THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE ENGINE REBUILDERS OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 AND COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS TO ANSWER FULLY. 27. Defendant fails to provide any answer to the following interrogatory and only objects to following questions: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify Angel Delago’s young daughter, who is referred to in the Affidavit of David Silva. RESPONSE: Co-Defendant “E.R.” objects to this Interrogatory as it is an improper invasion of the daughter's privacy rights as the daughter is not a party to this lawsuit. Without waiving those objections, see Defendants’ Disclosure Responses on this topic that are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. 28. InTouch’s Interrogatory is not an invasion of any individual's privacy rights. David Silva identified “Angel Delgado’s daughter” as an agent or at least a key actor for Engine Rebuilders when he says in his affidavit, “Angel Delgado’s young daughter (who apparently had no prior dealings with obtaining a vehicle Title) went to the DMV and was instructed by the DMV & bond company on how to obtain a Title. The daughter did exactly as the DMV & bonding company instructed her to do.” This unnamed individual clearly has relevant facts to this case as she purportedly is the only one that physically engaged in the application for bonded title which is the basis of several of InTouch’s legal theories. MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 7 29. Furthermore, Engine Rebuilders refers to their Disclosure Reponses which do not fully identify the individual. InTouch defined “identify” to mean providing the name, address, and phone number of the specified individual. Engine Rebuilders in its disclosures does not identify which individual is Angel Delgado’s daughter. Assuming the daughter is an individual named Jackie per Engine Rebuilder disclosures, a phone number is not listed for that individual and the address listed is the physical address of dQ” Engine Rebuilders which is certainly not “Angel Delgado’s young daughter's” address. Therefore, the Court should overrule Engine Rebuilders’ objections and compel a complete answer to this Interrogatory and provide InTouch with a properly executed verification for same. B. ENGINE REBUILDERS’ ANSWERS TO INTOUCH’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 30. Engine Rebuilders fails to properly respond to InTouch’s First Requests for Production as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196 and produces only six (6) pages of allegedly responsive documents. See Exhibit B-3. 1 ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO INTOUCH’s DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS. 31 Defendants first object to InTouch’s Definitions as follows: “ER? Co-Defendant objects to the “Definitions & “Instructions,” provisions of Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories in their entirety as same are vague, global, ambiguous, overly burdensome, and harassing. The “Definitions” provision is also objectionable as same places obligations and requirements on the Defendant which are far beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196 and/or 197 TRCP and therefore, impermissible. That is particularly true of the “Action,” “Litigation,” “Vehicle,” “Communications,” “Document” and “Statements sub-sections of those definitions. Plaintiffs definitions are not the legal definitions of those terms and not found in the Texas Rules of Civil MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 8 Procedure. Therefore, said requirements and obligations are objectionable and will not be followed in these discovery responses. See Exhibit B-2. 32. Here, Engine Rebuilders continues to hide behind boiler plate objections which have not been tailored to the specific requests from InTouch. Defendant does not specify which instruction is objectionable and why. Defendant asserts that InTouch places an obligation beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196, and/or 197 without any explanation or a willingness to confer. 33. Engine Rebuilders again asserts that definitions in discovery must use “legal definitions” of words or be defined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which is unfounded. InTouch prepared the “definitions” in an effort to clarify any ambiguities that Engine Rebuilders may encounter when responding. Defendant should be required to remove the boiler plate objections to InTouch’s definitions and instructions. ii. THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE ENGINE REBUILDERS’ OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Nos. 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21,27 AND 28 AND COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN ENGINE REBUILDERS’ POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL. 34. Request for Production No. 10 seeks all notes or other writings or recordings (such as diaries, calendars, journals, photographs, text messages, other electronic communications or recordings, and social media posts) you made relating to any of the allegations in this Litigation. Exhibit B-2. Request No. 12 seeks all communications between you and InTouch regarding this Litigation. /d. Request No. 14 seeks all internal communications regarding the Vehicle. /d. Request No. 15 seeks all internal communications regarding the Litigation. /d. Request No. 19 seeks all communications between Engine Rebuilders and Angel Delgado’s young daughter, MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 9 referred to in the Affidavit of David Silva, regarding the Vehicle. /d. Request No. 21 seeks all communications between Engine Rebuilders and any potential buyers of the Vehicle. Id. Request No. 27 seeks all notes or other writings or recordings (such as diaries, calendars, journals, photographs, text messages, other electronic communications or recordings, and social media posts) you made relating to any of the defenses in this Litigation. /d. Request No. 28 seeks to produce any notes, documents, or correspondence regarding the Vehicle. 35. Defendant responds to each of the forementioned requests identically as follows: Co-Defendant “E.R.” objects to these Requests for the reason that same seek information/documentation which is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Also objectionable as they seek documents that violate the privacy rights of third parties who have no connection to this lawsuit. Defendant “E.R.,” without waiving the foregoing objection, further objects to these Requests for the reason that same is overly broad, harassing, unduly burdensome and seeks documents that are exempt from discovery under the attorney-client privilege party communication — investigative privilege and work product exemption. As of this date, “E.R.’s” Counsel has not made a decision as to which Trial Exhibits will be offered into evidence at the Jury Trial. Defendant “E.R.”, without waiving the foregoing objections, further objects to these Requests as they constitutes nothing more than a “fishing expedition”. Without waiving those objections, see “E.R.’s” Trial Exhibits that have already been produced and are incorporated herein by reference. Id. 36. Engine Rebuilders continuously attempts to hide behind boiler plate objections. The information being requested is relevant because each Request is tailored specifically to Engine Rebuilders’ actions as they relate to the Vehicle from the date the MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PaGE 10 Vehicle arrived at Engine Rebuilders until the date of filing this lawsuit. InTouch is of the reasonable belief that Engine Rebuilders has documents in their possession, custody, or control, such as and at the minimum, the application for bonded title, video surveillance to confirm InTouch’s arrival to Engine Rebuilders, communications between Engine Rebuilders and Angel Delgado’s daughter who went to the DMV to apply for the bonded title, agreements between Engine Rebuilders and the storage facilities where the Vehicle has allegedly been kept and is allegedly incurring storage fees. See GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tex.1993) (‘The phrase, “possession, custody or control”, within the meaning of this rule, includes not only actual physical possession, but constructive possession, and the right to obtain possession from a third party, such as an agent or representative. The right to obtain possession is a legal right based upon the relationship between the party from whom a document is sought and the person who has actual possession of it.”). It is without a doubt that additional documents are available to Engine Rebuilders, yet they choose either not to take possession or simply not to produce them. 37. Engine Rebuilders asserts without explanation that InTouch’s Requests violate the privacy rights of third parties. The documents being requested are about Engine Rebuilders, InTouch, and a “responsible third-party defendant Jose Guerra Arteaga” as they relate to the Vehicle. If it is Engine Rebuilders’ position that the third party whose rights are being violated is Angel Delgado’s young daughter this illustrates Engine Rebuilders’ bad faith. Engine Rebuilders intentionally enlisted a minor family member to fraudulently apply for a bonded title on its behalf. This critical fact is essential to most if not all of InTouch’s legal theories. Engine Rebuilders should not be rewarded MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES Pace 11 for convincing a minor family member to fraudulently apply for a bonded title and then be allowed to hide behind frivolous objections, refusing to answer any questions regarding such person or the facts surrounding her actions. InTouch’s Requests hardly qualify as a “fishing expedition.” Moreover, InTouch’s Requests are not overbroad because they are narrowly tailored in time from June 1, 2022 (the day the Vehicle was dropped off), to present per Instruction #5.” 38. None of InTouch’s Requests seek privileged information. If there are responsive documents that are privileged, pursuant to Rule 193.3, Engine Rebuilders must: (1) describes the information or materials withheld that, without revealing the privileged information itself or otherwise waiving the privilege, enables other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege, and (2) asserts a specific privilege for each item or group of items withheld. iii. ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 IN ITS POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL. 39. Request for Production No. 25 seeks a copy of the bonded title for the Vehicle. Exhibit A. Defendant responds, “[s]ee the previously produced ‘E.R.’s Trial Exhibits Nos. 1-7 that are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.” Exhibit B- 2. On December 22, 2023, Engine Rebuilders filed said list of trial exhibits which did not include documents. Exhibit B-5. However, it was not until March 20, 2024, when Engine Rebuilders finally responded to repeated requests for documents but produced only six pages. It is uncontested that Defendant applied for a bonded title on the Vehicle. The only document that they provided was a receipt and not the application itself, much less a copy of the actual bonded title. In order to apply for a bonded title, the applicant must provide MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 12 a photo ID, statement of fact for bonded title, proof of rightful ownership of vehicle, a bill of sale for the vehicle, an invoice for the vehicle cost, a copy of a check used to purchase the vehicle. Plaintiff refuses to produce any of these documents. See Bought a Vehicle Without A Title?, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MoTOR VEHICLES, https://www.txdmv.gov/motorists/buying-or-selling-a-vehicle/bought-a-vehicle-with-no- title. Even if the application (same with all the other docs mentioned above) is not in Engine Rebuilder’s current “possession” it has custody and has the ability to obtain and provide a copy of the application since it is in Engine Rebuilders’ control. See Tanner, 856 S.W.2d at 729. Therefore, Engine Rebuilders should be compelled to produce all documents responsive to this Request whether it currently has physical possession of such documents or not. Engine Rebuilders has custody and control of such documents, and it should have done what was necessary to produce such documents within the thirty days it had to respond to InTouch’s Request. Such Request was served over four months ago, which is more than ample time to obtain the requested documents. C. ENGINE REBUILDERS’ ANSWERS TO INTOUCH’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 40. Defendant has failed to properly answer InTouch’s First Set of Requests for Admissions as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 198.2. See Exhibit B-4. 41. Requests for admissions are often used to prove the genuineness of documents and may be used to ask a party to admit an opinion or fact or the application of law to facts. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.1. However, requests for admissions cannot be used to ask a party to admit a conclusion of law. Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 13 42. To appropriately respond to Requests for Admissions, the answer must be made in writing. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(a). Each answer, objection, or other response must be preceded by the request it applies to. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1. The response to the requests for admission must be signed by the attorney (or party when pro se). Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.3(a); see, e.g., In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583, 588-89 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (unsigned responses treated as failure to respond; requests were deemed admitted); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.3(d) (unsigned response must be struck unless failure to sign is corrected). The response to a request for admissions must (1) admit, (2) specifically deny, (3) set out in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter, (4) object, (5) assert a privilege, or (6) move for a protective order. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b) (responses 1-5); see Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 260-61 (Tex .App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (response 6). 1 ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 43. Defendant again hides behind a general objection to all of InTouch’s Requests for Admission. This Defendant objects to all of the Plaintiffs Requests for Admission as same violates 74 years of Texas case law as to how RFA are to be used. In Sanders, the Texas Supreme Court made the following observation about RFA: “The primary purpose of the rule is to simplify trial by eliminating matters about which there is no real controversy, but which may be difficult or expensive to prove. It was never intended to be used as a demand upon...a Defendant to admit that he had no..ground of defense [Emphasis theirs]” Sanders _v. Harder, 227 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex. 1950). Furthermore, RFA are not to be used to prevent litigants from presenting the truth to the trier of fact. Bynum v. Shatto, 514 S.W.2d 808,811 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, writ refd n.r.e.). Precisely what the Plaintiffs improper RFA seek to do. MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES Pace 14 Exhibit B-2. 44. Here, Engine Rebuilders does not explain how or why they believe InTouch’s factual Requests for Admission allegedly “violate 74 years of Texas law.” InTouch’s Requests are each tailored to prove facts which should not be in controversy. However, Engine Rebuilders has itself manufactured controversy with its evasive responses. The requests are not presented to ask Engine Rebuilders to admit that they have no ground of defense nor or they being used to prevent Engine Rebuilders from presenting truth to the trier of fact. The purpose and scope of InTouch’s Requests are solely to eliminate matters which should not have controversy. As such, Engine Rebuilders should be compelled to withdraw this frivolous objection. ii. ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO INToUCH’s DEFINITIONS. 45. Then Engine Rebuilders generally objects to InTouch’s definitions. ‘EoR” Co-Defendant objects to the ‘Definitions & “Instructions,” provisions of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission in their entirety as same are vague, global, ambiguous, overly burdensome, and harassing. The “Definitions” provision is also objectionable as same _ places obligations and requirements on the Defendant which are far beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196 and/or 197 TRCP and therefore, impermissible. The Plaintiffs definitions are not the legal definition of those terms and not found in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, said requirements and obligations are objectionable and will not be followed in these discovery responses. Exhibit B-2. 46. Here, Engine Rebuilders continues to hide behind boiler plate objections which have not been tailored to the specific requests from InTouch. Defendant does not specify which instruction is objectionable and why. Defendant asserts that InTouch places MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 15 an obligation beyond the scope of Rules 192, 196, and/or 197 without any explanation or a willingness to confer. 47. Engine Rebuilders again asserts that definitions in discovery must use “legal definitions” of words or be defined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which is unfounded. InTouch prepared the “definitions” in an effort to clarify any ambiguities that Engine Rebuilders may encounter when responding. Defendant should be required to remove the boiler plate objections to InTouch’s definitions and instructions. ii. ENGINE REBUILDERS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REMOVE THEIR OBJECTIONS AND EITHER ADMIT OR DENY REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Nos. 30, 33, 34, 38, 43,44, 45 48. Request for Admission No. 30 asks to admit that You never permitted a representative of InTouch to inspect the Vehicle. Exhibit A. Request No. 33 asks to admit that the Notice of Intention to File Mechanic’s Lien for the Vehicle did not include a work order signed by Jose Roberto Guerra Arteaga. /d. Request No. 34 asks to admit that the Notice of Intention to File Mechanic’s Lien for the Vehicle did not contain a proposed date of sale. Id. Request No. 38 asks to admit that You would not simultaneously release the Vehicle to InTouch if InTouch provided a credit card or cashier's check payment in exchange for the Vehicle. /d. Request No. 43 asks to admit that You were aware that InTouch was the lienholder on the Vehicle before July 22, 2023. /d. Request No. 44 asks to admit that the first time You contacted InTouch regarding the Vehicle was January 24, 2023. Id. Request No. 45 asks to admit that You applied for a bonded title for the Vehicle on or before July 22, 2023. /d. 49. Defendant responds to each of the forementioned requests identically as follows: MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 16 Defendant “ER” objects to all the above-referenced Requests For Admission as they are repetious, multiple duplicates, harassing and subject to Rule 215 sanctions. In addition,. Defendant “E.R.” objects to all of the above-referenced Requests For Admissions as they deal with topics that are irrelevant to any of the Plaintiffs causes of action and could never lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving those objections, Admit. See Exhibit B-4. 50. First, InTouch acknowledges due to a clerical error several of InTouch’s Requests for Admissions were duplicative. Upon notice of the error, InTouch immediately withdrew the duplicative Requests. InTouch’s Requests for Admissions all deal with topics that are relevant to InTouch’s claim as well as InTouch’s defense to Engine Rebuilders’ counterclaims. The ability to inspect the vehicle, Engine Rebuilders’ application for a bonded title, terms to the alleged agreement between Engine Rebuilders and InTouch are all central questions which shed light on necessary facts. Engine Rebuilders again does not tailor or specify how these requests are harassing because they all go to facts plead in InTouch’s Original Petition. Therefore, Engine Rebuilders must be compelled to remove their objection and respond as “admitted.” V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 51. InTouch requests that the Court grant InTouch its reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 215.1(d). MacDonald Devin, PC v. Rice, No. 05-14-00938-CV, 2015 WL 6468188, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 27, 2015, no pet.). Rule 215.1(d) states that if a motion to compel pursuant to Rule 215 is granted “the court shall ... require a party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay ... the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees[.]” Tex. R. Civ. P. 215(d). InTouch made MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 17 multiple attempts to work with Engine Rebuilders to avoid the necessity of judicial intervention, but Engine Rebuilders has refused to engage in a proper meet and confer to attempt to resolve the discovery disputes and intentionally failed to respond or correct the deficiencies in its Discovery Responses. 52. Because Engine Rebuilder’s conduct resulted in the necessity that InTouch prepare and file this Motion, an award of fees and expenses is warranted. InTouch requests an award of its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in preparing this Motion and attending and participating in the hearing thereon. InTouch will provide an attorney's fee affidavit prior to the hearing on this Motion. Vi. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, InTouch Credit Union, respectfully requests that the Court set this Motion to Compel for hearing at its earliest convenience and after hearing argument and evidence from the parties, grant the relief requested herein, attorney’s fees and costs, and such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may be justly entitled. MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 18 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Amanda Loughmiller AMANDA LOUGHMILLER State Bar No. 24028042 SAMIN AGHA State Bar No. 24110989 QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C. 6900 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 800 Plano, Texas 75024 (214) 560-5455- Telephone (214) 871-2111- Facsimile loughmillert slwm.com agha@aqslwm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIF CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference vie electronic mail between March 7, 2024, and April 5, 2024, at which movant attempted to substantively discuss every item presented to the Court but, respondent has refused to fully engage, despite best efforts the parties have not been able to resolve the matters presented. /s/ Samin Agha Samin Agha MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that on this the 12th day of April 2024, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to all parties in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: Gregory Alan Scott gscott@gscottlaw.com The Scott Law Firm P.O. Box 560664 Dallas, TX 75356 (214) 951-9292 (214) 951-9495 Fax Counsel for Plaintiff /s/ Amanda Loughmiller AMANDA LOUGHMILLER MOTION TO COMPEL ENGINE REBUILDERS’ DISCOVERY RESPONSES PAGE 20 EXHIBIT A OuALING SELANOER LOWNOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS, Direct: (214) 560-5455 AMANDA LOUGHMILLER 6900 N. DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 800 Main: (214) 871-2100 al loughm @gsiwm.com PLANO, TEXAS 75024 Fax: (214) 871-2111 January 11, 2024 VIA EMAIL Gregory Alan Scott gscott@gscottlaw.com The Scott Law Firm P.O, Box 560664 Dallas, TX 75356 Re: InTouch Credit Union vs. Engine Rebuilders, et al; Cause No. DC-23-17199; 134" Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Counsel, Regarding the above referenced matter, enclosed please find the following: 1 Plaintiff InTouch Credit Union’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC; 2. Plaintiff InTouch Credit Union’s First Request for Admissions to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC; and 5 Plaintiff InTouch Credit Union’s First Request for Production to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, ; Amanda Loughmiller Enclosures CAUSE NO. DC-23-17199 INTOUCH CREDIT UNION, IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF, vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ENGINE REBUILDERS, LLC, ANGEL § DELGADO, MARIA DELGADO, AND DAVID § SILVA, § § DEFENDANTS. § 13474 JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF INTOUCH CREDIT UNION’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ENGINE REBUILDERS, LLC TO: Engine Rebuilders, LLC, by and through Defendants’ attorney of record, Gregory Alan Scott, The Scott Law Firm, P.O. Box 560664, Dallas, TX 75356. COMES NOW, InTouch Credit Union (‘Plaintiff’), Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause and serves this its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC (“Engine Rebuilders” or “Defendant’). Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (‘TRCP”) 197.2(a), Defendant shall answer and respond to these Interrogatories within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff demands that Defendant comply with TRCP 197.1 by furnishing not only such information in answering these Interrogatories as Defendant has personally, but also such information as is available to Defendant or to her attorneys, agents, and/or representatives. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS The following definitions shall apply to InTouch Credit Union's First Set of Interrogatories: 4 “You,” “your” or “Defendant” means Defendant Engine Rebuilders, LLC, its subsidiaries, divisions, predecessor and successor companies, affiliates, 6789611.1 parents, any partnership or joint venture to which it may be a party, and/or each of its employees, agents, officers, directors, representatives, consultants, accountants, including any person who served in any such capacity at any time during the relevant time period specified herein. 2 “Plaintiff or “ITCU” means InTouch Credit Union and its employees, agents, or representatives. 3 “Arteaga” or “Member” means Jose Roberto Guerra Arteaga. 4 “Action” or “Litigation” means the litigation pending in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 134th Judicial District, captioned InTouch Credit Union v. Engine Rebuilders, LLC, et al, Cause No. DC-23-17199 o ‘Vehicle’ is defined as the 2021 Honda Civic Type-R with vehicle identification number SHHFK8G76MU201431. » 6 “Parties” mean the terms “plaintiff(s) and “defendant(s)” as well as a party’s full or abbreviated name or pronoun referring to a party means the party and, where applicable, its officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent, subsidiaries or affiliates. This definition is not intended to impose a discovery obligation on any person who is not a party to the litigation. i “Person” means any natural person, individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, business, legal or government entity, governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity.