Evidence of a Serpe Case Purportedly Suffering from Deposition Delay and Non-Responsiveness





Republished: Nov 25, 2022

COME NOW LESLIE MILLER, Plaintiff herein, moving to compel the deposition of David E. Tomaszek, MD, and in support thereof say:


On April 28, 2022, Plaintiffs requested dates for the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek.

Exhibit A.

Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up with Defense counsel on May 3, 2022 after not receiving a response with proposed dates.

Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defense counsel that Plaintiffs would notice the deposition if Plaintiffs’ counsel did not hear from Defense counsel within three days.

Defense counsel did respond on May 11, 2022 stating that they were working on getting dates from their client and would be sending them shortly.

They also asked at this time for dates to depose Plaintiff Leslie Miller, which Plaintiffs counsel provided the very next day on May 12, 2022.

Exhibit B.

On June 15, 2022 having still yet to receive any dates for the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek, Plaintiff’s counsel again asked for dates and again stated that they would notice the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek if they had not received dates from Defense counsel.

Exhibit C.

Having received no response from Defense counsel, on June 24, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel noticed Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition.

Exhibit D.

On June 30, 2022, Defense counsel filed and served a motion quashing Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition.

Exhibit E.

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel again noticed the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek, absent any cooperation or offer of available dates by Defense counsel.

Exhibit F.

On August 5, 2022, Defense counsel again filed a Motion to Quash the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek.

Exhibit G.

On August 10, 2022, Defense counsel informed Plaintiff that Dr. Tomaszek was available for deposition on October 5 or 6, 2022.

Exhibit H.

Plaintiff responded by informing Defendant of Plaintiff’s unavailability for those dates, and requesting dates for after October 7, 2022.

Exhibit I.

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs asked if October 31, 2022 would work for Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition. Exhibit J.

On August 18, 2022, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Dr. Tomaszek was available for deposition on October 31, 2022, subject to a trial setting.

Exhibit K.

That same day, Plaintiff noticed Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition for October 31, 2022.

Exhibit L.

On October 27, 2022, Defendant notified Plaintiff that he had been called to trial and had to cancel the October 31, 2022 deposition of Dr. Tomaszek.

Exhibit M.

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff again requested dates for the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek, informing opposing counsel that Plaintiff would unilaterally notice the deposition if Defendant did not respond in seven days.

Exhibit N.

Having not received a response from Defendant, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Dr. Tomaszek for December 2, 2022. Exhibit O.

On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to quash the deposition of Dr.Tomaszek within three business days of Plaintiff noticing his deposition, automatically quashing that deposition.

Exhibit P.

In their motion to quash, Defendant states that Defendant is diligently working to secure dates the witness and counsel are available for the requested deposition and will provide them to Plaintiff upon receipt; and that Defense counsel remains ready and available to work out scheduling issues with Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiffs remain willing to work with Defense counsel to schedule Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition, and to wait a reasonable time to receive reasonable alternative dates for taking Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition.

However, if Plaintiffs’ attorneys do not receive reasonable alternative dates for Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition within a reasonable time, Plaintiffs will have to set this motion to compel for hearing by the Court.1

1 Plaintiffs’ attorneys are confident Defense counsel will furnish reasonable alternative dates for Dr. Tomaszek’s deposition within a reasonable time.

Nope, Serpe Andrews filed to Quash the fourth attempt to depose the Doctor.


Associate, Serpe Andrews

Amanda joined Serpe Andrews as an associate in October 2021. Her primary practice area is health care litigation, with a focus on medical malpractice, commercial litigation, and personal injury litigation. Her practice encompasses all phases of the litigation process including discovery, motion practice, and trial work.

AMANDA MARIE SCHRAMM graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Biology with Honors from Texas State University – San Marcos in 2011.

She went on to attend the University of Houston Law Center, earning her J.D. in 2014, where she served as the Social Director of the Student Bar Association, the Treasurer of the American Constitution Society, and a Peer Student Mentor.

In recognition of her scholarship in health law, Amanda was awarded the Prudential Life Scholarship Award for Excellence in Health Law and the Ewer-Oren J.D. Health Law Writing Award.

Prior to joining the firm, Amanda represented health care providers in Texas in a variety of health care litigation matters.

During that time, she gained valuable experience in health care litigation, including significant trial and appellate experience, which has helped her become an adept advocate for her clients.

Outside of the office, Amanda enjoys spending time with her friends and family, scuba diving, and volunteering in the community whenever she is able.


formerly of Serpe Andrews
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like