DEFENDANT HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD’S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND PRODUCTION FOR MADISON J. ADDICKS
Originally Published: Feb. 16, 2023 | Republished: Feb. 17, 2023
1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
Admit your name is Madison J. Addicks and you are licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, and in Harris County District Court.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects that this request is unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, harassing, and compound. Defendant further objects that Plaintiff has not yet provided a sufficient expert report and, therefore, is prohibited from conducting discovery at this time pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s).
RESPONSE: LAWYER PLEADS THE FIFTH AFTER EX-PARTE CONVERSATION WITH JUDGE
Defendant objects that this request is unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, harassing, and compound…. pic.twitter.com/HlPqObNQEF
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 17, 2023
“Unusually Egregious and Persistent Conduct”
Originally Published: Feb 9, 2023 | Republished:Feb 13, 2023
“This case is an example of a wealthy client (Facebook) and its high-powered law firm (Gibson Dunn) using delay, misdirection, and frivolous arguments to make litigation unfairly difficult and expensive for their opponents.
Unfortunately, this sort of conduct is not uncommon in our court system.
But it was unusually egregious and persistent here”
– VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge
“Facebook and Gibson Dunn are ordered to pay the plaintiffs $925,078.51 in sanctions.
They are jointly and severally liable for this amount, and they must compensate the plaintiffs within 21 days of this ruling. To be sure, this amount is loose change for a company like Facebook, and even for a law firm like Gibson Dunn.
But it’s important for courts to help protect litigants from suffering financial harm as a result of their opponents’ litigation misconduct.
And hopefully, this ruling will create some incentive for Facebook and Gibson Dunn (and perhaps even others) to behave more honorably moving forward.”
– VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge
DEFENDANT HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD’S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION
Originally Published: Feb. 13, 2023 | Republished: Feb. 13, 2023
Request 1: Production of electronic data in the form of video surveillance footage from August 9, 2022 through August 13, 2022 in .mp4 video format.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant further objects that this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably tailored to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
DEFENDANT HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ATTENDING AND NON-ATTENDING HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD PHYSICIANS, NURSES, SECURITY OFFICERS, STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, JOHN DOE(S), JANE DOE(S), ET AL’S BIOS, CONTACT INFORMATION INCLUDING HOME ADDRESSES
Originally Published: Feb. 13, 2023 | Republished: Feb. 13, 2023
REQUEST NO. 1: Production of “HCA staff” at HCA Kingwood Hospital who interacted with Plaintiff during his visit, or who were involved in the care of Plaintiff but did not physically participate or meet Plaintiff (as a patient), or who were involved in the post-discharge complaint(s) as submitted to Defendant’s.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks creation of a document not in existence.
Subject to the foregoing objections, please see the medical records previously produced.
REQUEST NO. 2: Production of relevant doctors visiting the South Wing, Room 376, including Mohammed R Mowla, MD, Daniel Avila Castillo, MD R1, Mike Wong, MD R1, Randy Chung, MD, and Sana Ehsan, MD.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in time and scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks creation of a document not in existence.
Subject to the foregoing objections, please see the medical records previously produced.
REQUEST NO. 3: Production of emergency room personnel, including Amy M Dionne, APRNNP, Lakshmi Tatineni, MD R2, James Barton, MD, Muzna A Ilyas, MD (unknown), and “Referred Self, Referring.”
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in time and scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks creation of a document not in existence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, please see the medical records previously produced.
REQUEST NO. 4: Production of nurses and security guards who threatened eviction on August 10, 2023 within an hour of Mark Burke’s transfer from ER to the South Wing.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous in that it references a date that has not yet occurred, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and calls for the creation of a document not in existence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, please see the medical records previously produced.
REQUEST NO. 5: Production of information regarding Director of Community and Public Relations, Ms. Devon Alexander.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous as to the term “information,” not limited in time or scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST NO. 6: Production of information as to the HCA Staff assigned to [Plaintiff’s] complaint(s) and HCA Staff involved in providing information for the complaint, including the footage of the video surveillance.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous as to the term “information,” not limited in time or scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant also objects as any investigation commissioned by the Risk Management Committee is conducted for the committee’s purposes, and those documents and proceedings generated by the investigation are protected by the medical committee privilege.
Martinez v. Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 146 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2004).
REQUEST NO. 7: Production of information pertaining to who at HCA entered into a binding agreement to assign Serpe Andrews, PLLC on this case, when the contract was agreed, signed and related information which is necessary.
RESPONSE: Because Plaintiff has not produced a compliant expert report per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(s), this request is premature and exceeds the scope of discovery.
Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous as to the term “information,” not limited in time or scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The purpose of discovery is to “seek the truth, so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed.”
Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex. 1984).
Discovery may be obtained about any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the case.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(a).
Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Defendants’ noncompliance with the discovery request thwarts Plaintiff’s discovery efforts, prevents effective trial preparation, and conceals relevant facts.
doctor
