Opinion

in Re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed: Dec 7, 2015
Status: Published
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 3.1%

reversing a discovery order regarding substances to which the plaintiffs never alleged exposure

How later courts described this case

reversing a discovery order regarding substances to which the plaintiffs never alleged exposure
reversing a discovery order regarding respiratory equipment the plaintiffs never alleged they used
reversing a discovery order regarding vehicles without the fuel filler-neck that was allegedly defective

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FILED IN

1 COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TX

12/07/2015

NO. CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE,

CLERK

IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

at HOUSTON, TEXAS

______________________________________________

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator

______________________________________________

Original Proceeding From The

11th Judicial District Court of

Harris County, Texas

Cause No. 2014-34635

______________________________________________

RELATOR’S RECORD (Part 2 of 4)

R0320-R0664

______________________________________________

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

George Andrew Coats

State Bar No. 00783846

E-mail: coats@texasaviationlaw.com

Gary Linn Evans

State Bar No. 00795338

E-mail: evans@texasaviationlaw.com

Carrie M. McKerley

State Bar No. 24056625

Email: mckerley@texasaviationlaw.com

P.O. Box 130246

The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246

Telephone: (281) 367-7732

Facsimile: (281) 367-8003

EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

RECORD

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION

PAGE NO.

1. 12/04/2015 Affidavit of Carrie M. McKerley certifying true N/A

and correct copies of record documents

2. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0001-

R0019

3. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to R0020-

Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0036

4. 08/11/2014 Helicopter Services, Inc.’s Original Answer and R0037-

Request for Disclosure. R0039

5. 08/11/2014 Original Answer of the Estate of Christopher R0040-

Yeager, Deceased, and Request for Disclosure. R0042

6. 08/18/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Original R0043-

Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0049

7. 09/30/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0050-

Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First R0085

Discovery Requests.

8. 12/11/2014 Docket Control Order. R0086-

R0088

9. 03/19/2015 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Continuance R0089-

and for Entry of Docket Control Order. R0095

10. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0096-

Helicopter Company’s Responses to First R0137

Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on

Defendant’s Objections.

11. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Designation of Expert Witnesses and R0138-

Expert Reports. R0271

12. 03/23/2015 Order Granting Continuance. R0272

13. 04/28/2015 Agreed Amended Docket Control Order. R0273-

R0274

14. 05/07/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0275-

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel R0290

Responses to First Discovery Requests, and

Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

15. 05/20/2015 Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition. R0291-

R0319

16. 06/01/2015 Amended Agreed Protective Order. R0320-

R0328

17. 06/15/2015 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production to R0329-

Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0340

18. 07/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. R0341-

R0349

19. 07/15/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0350-

Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second R0375

Discovery Requests.

20. 07/22/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0376-

Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to R0422

Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and

Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

21. 07/24/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0423-

Amended Responses and Objections to R0456

Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests.

22. 08/07/2015 Plaintiffs’ Amended Designation of Expert R0457-

Witnesses and Expert Reports. R0555

23. 08/11/2015 Plaintiffs’ Third Requests for Production to R0556-

Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0561

24. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0562-

to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0664

Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to

Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and

Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

25. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0665-

to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for R0682

Sanctions.

26. 08/21/2015 Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of R0683-

Deposition by Written Questions. R0696

27. 08/24/2015 Deposition Subpoena to Testify or Produce R0697-

Documents. R0702

28. 08/27/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0703-

Transcript. R0719

29. 08/28/2015 Supreme Court of Texas Grant of Motion for R0720-

Limited Emergency Stay. R0721

30. 09/04/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0722-

to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0740

Transcripts.

31. 09/08/2015 Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Response of Robinson R0741-

Helicopter Company, Inc.to Plaintiffs’ Motion R0752

to Compel Deposition Transcripts.

32. 09/10/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0753-

Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third R0765

Discovery Requests.

33. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0766-

Designation of Expert Witnesses and Expert R0821

Reports.

34. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0822-

Amended Responses and Objections to R0845

Plaintiffs’ Second Discovery Requests.

35. 09/22/2015 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena. R0846

36. 09/23/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R0847-

to Reconsider or in the Alternate, Motion to R0854

Clarify.

37. 09/30/2015 Reporter’s Record of September 30, 2015 R0855-

hearing. R1016

38. 11/05/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1017-

for Leave to Designate Responsible Third R1022

Parties.

39. 11/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Response to Robinson Helicopter R1023-

Company, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Designate R1026

Responsible Third Parties.

40. 11/17/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1027-

for Continuance. R1045

41. 11/17/2015 Trial Preparation Order. R1046-

R1048

42. 11/18/2015 Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Motion for R1049-

Continuance of Robinson Helicopter Company, R1053

Inc.

43. 11/19/2015 Order Granting Motion to Take Judicial Notice, R1054-

Granting Objection to Production Requests in R1060

Part; Granting Discovery in Part.

44. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1061-

Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Dr. R1065

Joseph Burton.

45. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc's R1066-

Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1070

William D. Carden M.S. P. E.

46. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1071-

Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1075

William S. Lawrence.

47. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1076-

Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Colin R1080

A Sommer, P.E.

48. 11/25/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, R1081-

Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Order R1274

Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and

Contingent Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus.

49. 11/27/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1275-

Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Exemplary R1282

Damages.

50. 11/27/2015 Notice of Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. Wilson. R1283-

R1284

51. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Trial Continuance. R1285-

R1287

52. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Leave To Designate R1288

Responsible 3rd Party.

53. 11/30/2015 Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Notice of Oral and R1289-

Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. R1296

Wilson.

54. 12/2/2015 Exhibit List from Court Reporter (pursuant to R1297

September 30, 2015 hearing).

55. Reporter’s Record of August 17, 2015 hearing. R1298-

R1314

56. Reporter’s Record from November 30, 2015 R1315-

hearing. R1326

Pgs-9

CIPRO

MODIX

R0320

R0321

R0322

R0323

R0324

R0325

R0326

R0327

R0328

R0329

R0330

R0331

R0332

R0333

R0334

R0335

R0336

R0337

R0338

R0339

R0340

7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM

Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 6022000

By: Tammy Tolman

Filed: 7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

and as Personal Representative of the Estate

of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates

and Nathan M. Ates

VS. HARRIS ay•TTY, TEXAS

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY,

INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. 4

and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER

4K ,

YEAGER tkiuDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND F ANCTIONS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Nathan S. Ate.), vidually and as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deqeltag , Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates, filing

this Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, and port thereof would respectfully show unto

the Court the following:

This Court overruled TZ endant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Motion for

Reconsideration of its Ort(gianting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on July 7, 2015. This Court

also denied Defendant' >4

uest for stay as the ten days given to defendants by the Court in order

to seek mandamu expired without any effort of the defendant to file such a writ.

Defen tied its Limited Motion for Emergency Stay along with its Petition for Writ of

Mandamus on Wednesday, July 8, 2015. The Court of Appeals has rejected Defendant's Motion

for Emergency Stay, which renders Defendant in contempt of the Court's order for production of

the subject documents by Wednesday, July 8, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. (See Exhibit A, attached

hereto.)

R0341

II.

Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., unlike any other aviation manufacturer,

is self-insured. Plaintiff has filed a petition alleging both negligence and punitive damages

against defendant. Plaintiff has also filed discovery requests seeking Defendant's net worth.

On May 11, 2015, the parties appeared before the Court. The Cot onsidered the

arguments of counsel and advised Defendant to provide evidence of net h. Defendant has

not followed the Court's directive. Plaintiff has filed a proposed , r which the Court has

edited and granted on June 24, 2015, directing Defendant to pr . . . documents sufficient

to establish the current net worth of Robinson Helicopter ny, Inc. within 10 days . . ." of

June 24, 2015.

Defendant has threatened and ultimatel ght appellate review, despite the fact that this

Court's ruling is consistent with current cas on this subject.

Plaintiffs will not repeat the cedural history set out in Defendant's response to

Plaintiffs' motion for the net wortscovery, but would show that Defendant's opposition does

not address the issues raise circumstances where defendant is uninsured, such as this.

Additionally, Plaintiffs ae1 Defendant have entered into a protective order providing for

confidentiality of the qy • rmation exchanged during the discovery process.

Defendan Os put on no evidence of any "extreme risk of prejudice involved with the

disclosure oefendant's net worth" in this case. The information is sought to evaluate both

ability and capacity of the Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., to pay damages for

negligence and for punitive damages, which have been alleged.

R0342

IV.

Defendant claimed it does not have to produce the information and attached Senate Bill

No. 735, which it claims was signed the same date Plaintiffs filed the proposed order. However,

the new law does not take effect until September 1, 2015. Furthermore, the new law will not

apply to the facts of this case. Section 3 of SB 735 states that the ". chan law made by

this Act applies only to an action filed on or after the effective date of th ff

As Plaintiffs' case was filed on June 16, 2014, the law p s this Court to order

defendant to provide its net worth information, both necessary ppropriate in this cause of

action.

Defendant's opposition and its claims of reli ugh SB No. 735 are unfounded,

disingenuous and unsupported by the evidence DefeigIcont purports to be applicable.

Defendant filed its additional Motieor Reconsideration of Order Granting Plaintiffs'

Motion to Compel and Contingent M to Stay Pending Mandamus on July 3, 2015.

This motion additionally requeste e Court conduct a gatekeeper hearing or in the alternative,

an emergency stay on the pro eft. % n of Defendant's documents evidencing net worth pending its

Petition for Writ of Ma Qs. These requests were denied by the Court on July 7, 2015.

VI. ANT CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COURT'S ORDERS

Plaintiff uld show that 5:00 p.m. has come and gone on July 8, 2015 and Defendant

has failed toQitport with the Court's order directing its production of net worth information.

Defendant continues to defy the Court's rulings despite an oral hearing and two written

orders. Instead, defendant filed its Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Limited Motion for

Emergency Stay, which motion was denied on July 10, 2015.

R0343

Defendant is in contempt of this Court's order.

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Counsel for defendant has challenged the Court's discretion in entering the

Orders of June 24, 2015 and July 7, 2015. With the motion denied at the trial court and

appellate levels, the Defendant is in contempt of the Court's order. 4

Therefore, Plaintiffs now request. this Court to order sanctions andtt L.ey fees in this

t%,

matter pursuant to TRCP 215.2, which allows a trial court to sanction for failure to

comply with a discovery order or request. Rule 215.2(b) lists th tions a court may impose.

Possible sanctions include, among others, an order refusingS w the disobedient party to

support designated defenses, an order striking out plead' r parts thereof, and an order

requiring the disobedient party to pay reasonable e/ ses, including attorney's fees, caused by

the failure. TEX.R.CIV.P. 215.2(b); Cire v. C ngs, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004). The

legitimate purposes of discovery sanctions secure compliance with discovery rules, to

deter others from similar misconduct o punish violators. Chrysler Corp. V. Blackmon, 841

S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1992). A court has the discretion to apply sanctions that are

appropriate or just. TransAmd, Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 916 (Tex.

1991). More severe sanc4Sl imay be assessed when accompanied by a party's flagrant bad faith

or counsel's callous, gard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules. Id. at 918. If a

party refuses to .(tP uce material evidence, despite the imposition of lesser sanctions, the court

may presumliat an asserted claim or defense lacks merit and dispose of it. Id.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs file this Motion against

Defendant,Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and request sanctions for Defendant's failure to

R0344

comply with this Court's orders of June 28, 2015 and July 7, 2015, and for a finding that

Defendant is in contempt of this Court's order. Plaintiffs pray for such other and further relief to

which they may be justly entitled, at law and in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVENSON & •

1st Mark T. !4. ay/s/

MARK T° '14 ' • Y

State B. 14724810

24 ° ay Plazas, Suite 750

, Texas 77046

,z)

v 713) 622-3223

(713) 622-3224

O• ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICAT ONFERENCE

I certify that I contacted counsel for D V, dant via email on July 10, 2015, in

regard to filing this motion to compel. ounsel for Defendant has neither responded to

counsel's email, nor complied wit ourt's order, the undersigned believes that

Defendant's counsel is opposed he filing of this motion.

/s/ Mark T. Murray/s/

Mark T. Murray

OHO

R0345

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered

to all counsel on this the 10 th day of July 2015, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

via email, E-file, U.S. Mail, or facsimile:

DON SWAIM

Cunningham Swaim, LLP

7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440

Dallas, Texas 75231

M-_))

George Andrew Coats l'%9 -

Gary Linn Evans

COATS & EVANS, P.C. '<5"

P.O. Box 130246 aft,

The Woodlands, Texas 77393 0246-

Courtesy Copy:

Robinson Helicopter, Inc.

In House Counsel via ceta,robinsonheli.com

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/

s Mark T. Murray

R0346

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00594-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-34635

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris Co i

qe>

On July 8, 2015, relator, Robinson Helicopter pany, Inc., filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus. Relator also has filed a motion for e ncy stay, requesting a stay as to the trial

court's order compelling production of docum flecting relator's net worth. The motion is

denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge's signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

Acting indiv . ❑ Acting for the Court

Date: July 10, 2015

Exhibit A

R0347

7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM

Chris Daniel - District Clerk

Harris County

Envelope No: 6022000

By: TOLMAN, TAMMY E

Filed: 7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

and as Personal Representative of the Estate §

of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates

and Nathan M. Ates

vs. HARRIS CTITY, TEXAS

rr,,c

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § _V)

INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § ki.)

and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § ,

YEAGER § K1/4` _ICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTI\ OR SANCTIONS

BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the day a e shown hereinbelow, the Court

considered PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; After

considering the motion, evidence, and the arg jJ s of counsel if any, the Court finds that

Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is with me rd should be, in all respects, granted.

The Court also finds that the ~ r, ndant is in contempt and has wholly failed to comply

with the Court's orders directing ndant's production of net worth evidence, entered June 24,

2015 and July 7, 2015. This has previously denied Defendant's motion for a stay. The

Court notes a mandam eeding with a request for a stay was filed. The Appellate Court by

order denied Defer#iQ s request for a stay on July 10, 2015. Defendant is in contempt of this

Court's prior ord0.

It is erefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is in all things

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall pay reimbursement to Plaintiffs for the cost

of counsel's discovery practice, motion practice and appearance; to further discourage this

R0348

Defendant from engaging in discovery abuse in the State of Texas and before the Court, this

Court makes an award of $ payable by Defendant, Robinson

Helicopter Co., Inc., to Plaintiffs which shall be paid within ten days from the date of entry of

this Order.

SIGNED this day of July 2015. 4

PRESIDING

R0349

NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Personal Representative of the Estate of §

Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES §

and NATHAN M. ATES, §

Plaintiff, §

§ 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

vs. §

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, §

INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and §

the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, §

§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendants.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON

HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby responds to Plaintiffs NATHAN S.

ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates,

Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) Second Request for

Production for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any

extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any

statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently

discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not

completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any

and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions,

Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in

R0350

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections

are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion

of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of

Robinson’s general objections as set forth below:

1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as

they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than

those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable

orders of this Court.

2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and

admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any

information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.

3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as

they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this

case or over whom Robinson has no control.

4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the

grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly

burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated

to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after

reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its

objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be

obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of

Civil Procedure governing discovery.

R0351

6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as

they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client

privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the

confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal

research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in

anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts

each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the

information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and

future case management orders.

7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the

extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession,

custody or control.

8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the

extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other

confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary

information.

9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as

they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or

control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the

same or greater facility than Robinson.

10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the

extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to

this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such

R0352

requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the

extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses

before the close of discovery.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which

objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery

Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to

Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections.

Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and

“Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent

that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within

these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,”

“your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose

obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

R0353

SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents, correspondence, and

communications (including emails) pertaining to each and every investigation of a

Robinson R22 helicopter crash that you have been a part of during the last twelve

years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of

Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition”

prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.

1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information

protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual

or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds

the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this

request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of

substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that

this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret

privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused

the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so

broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff

articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson

reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its

possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and

pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A full and complete copy of all investigation

reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or

provided to you regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model crash during the last twelve

years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition”

prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.

1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information

protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual

or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

R0354

of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the

permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request

seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial

similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a

model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the

scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request

seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege

and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff

has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is

impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request

which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a

theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the

right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are

non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident

aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A full and complete copy of all investigation

reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or

provided to you regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model crash during the last twelve

years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of

Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicate of request number 1 of Plaintiffs’

second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited

by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks

information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the

attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive

control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible

scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks

documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial

similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this

request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret

privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused

the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so

broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff

articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson

reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its

R0355

possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and

pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents, correspondence, and

communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that

resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R22

helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and

13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing

expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145

(Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks

information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not

within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items

previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to

the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without

any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information

which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent

that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade

secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused

the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so

broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff

articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson

reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its

possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and

pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents, correspondence, and

communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that

resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R44

helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition”

prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.

1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information

R0356

protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual

or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds

the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this

request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of

substantial similarity of design or occurrence; is propounded for the purpose of

harassment; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets.

More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model

as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery.

Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by

the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and

confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific

theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if

Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be

discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or

narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this

response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-

privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the

subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents, correspondence, and

communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes)

involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is duplicative of request number 5 of

Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition”

prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.

1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information

protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual

or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is

propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of

discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents

unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design

or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets.

More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model

as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery.

Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by

the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and

R0357

confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific

theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if

Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be

discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or

narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this

response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-

privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the

subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents, correspondence, and

communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes)

involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that

it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and

13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicative of request number 4 of