# in Re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · December 7, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4074362 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** December 7, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4074362 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 ## Opinion text FILED IN st 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 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 a 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: I. This Court overruled TZ endant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Motion for O 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. 0 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.) 1 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. 2 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 0 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. 3 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 4 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 & • oe 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/ 00 Mark T. Murray OHO 5 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 e 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. O In House Counsel via ceta,robinsonheli.com /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ 0 s Mark T. Murray ay 6 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 0_ 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 *O 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 1 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 C PRESIDING OD C 2 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 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; 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. 8: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash or incident during the last twelve years. R0358 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; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; 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. 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. 9: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash/incident 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; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; 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 R0359 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. 10: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death. 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; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; 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. 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. 11: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death. 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; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; 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 R0360 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. 12: A full and complete copy of all opinions, articles, bulletins, memoranda, and/or presentations that you have issued pertaining to aerial photography services utilizing R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters during the last twelve years. 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; seeks confidential information; 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. 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. 13: A full and complete copy of all safety reports, issued by your Safety Committee, regarding the helicopter model at issue. 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 and time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated R0361 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; 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. 14: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction, in whole or any part, relative to this case. 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; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of 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. 15: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction relative to any case involving a Robinson R22 helicopter in the last twelve years. R0362 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; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; 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. 16: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed, analyzed, and/or concluded the possible cause(s) of the crash subject of this suit. 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; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; calls for a legal conclusion; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege and the trade secret privilege. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed the analytics, investigations and/or conclusions regarding cause(s) of crashes in which Robinson R-22 helicopters have been involved during the last twelve years. R0363 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; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; 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. 18: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R22 helicopter model. RESPONSE: This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/# REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R44 helicopter model. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/# REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: A full and complete copy of your corporate policies and procedures, including any mission statements, code of conduct, and/or any statements covering business ethics and safety procedures for your company. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is R0364 propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents, correspondence, and/or communications submitted to NTSB during the last twelve years which involve R-22 helicopter crashes resulting in personal injury or death. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; 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. 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. 22: All witness statements that were obtained relative to the incident subject of this suit. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague, overly broad, duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party. Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will 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. 23: All reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that Robinson maintains suggest pilot error occurred during the crash subject of this suit. 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; R0365 unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will 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. 24: All documents addressing or discussing the belt drive system and power failures associated with the Robinson R22 helicopter model. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; 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. 25: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices issued for Robinson R-22 helicopters and Robinson R-44 helicopters during the last 12 years. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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. R0366 Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/# REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices withdrawn for the Robinson R-22 helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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. Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/# REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Final engineering drawings which describe and identify the R-22 helicopter such as that involved in the incident subject of this suit, including part drawings, depictions of the configuration, specified tolerances, U.S. Government and Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. specifications, engineering orders, "Operation Sheet" a/k/a Outside Data Sheet setting out required specific tooling, inspection requirements, finish coating, process specifications, identification requirements, packaging requirements and any special facilities required for production. This request includes the supporting documentation for the power transfer system and fuel system of the R-22, including belt drive system, fuel tank location, fuel tank liners, clutch system and wiring diagram. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all belt manufacturing changes, including changes from Gates to any other manufacturer, involving the Robinson R22 helicopter model from 2003 to the present. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as R0367 presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. 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. 29: Records identifying each and every crash in which any R-22 helicopter models have been involved including but not limited to crash date, crash location, root cause analysis, investigation materials, identity of investigators and exact model of helicopter involved from 2003 to the present. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Documents reflecting the identity of members of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Safety Committee, including official capacity and/or office held by each, from original establishment of any committee dealing with helicopter safety of Robinson-manufactured helicopters, to the present. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential and proprietary; violates third-party’s privacy rights and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. R0368 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All documents provided to customers purchasing the R-22 helicopter from Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., i.e., warranty information, brochures, guarantees, user guides, etc. from 2003 to the present. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 [sic]: All Exhibit "A's" attached to any protective order entered on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., including those executed by consulting witnesses and/or testifying witnesses who have or may have reviewed documents related to Robinson R-22 helicopters. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague; overly broad; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the scope of permissible 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 protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 [sic]: All documents which reflect testing of the belt drive system such as that utilized on the Robinson R-22 helicopter subject of this suit, including but not limited to stretching of belts, conditioning of belts, instructions for belt replacement, instructions for belt inspection and instructions for handling any belt "failure." RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and R0369 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 [sic]: All documents which evidence and/or reflect instructions for response to rotor power loss while piloting a Robinson R-22 helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Information reflecting the net worth of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that is seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and is duplicative of request number 22 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Robinson incorporates by reference its prior briefing to the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals on this issue. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All documents exchanged between Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and Helicopter Services, Inc. which resulted in HSI becoming a factory-authorized Robinson Helicopter Service Center. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. R0370 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents which evidence inspections, reviews, audits or any other documents submitted by HSI to Robinson in order to maintain its designation with Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents which reflect, depict and/or outline the training of HSI technicians, service and/or repair personnel, by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. personnel and/or its representatives, authorizing HSI to service the R-22 helicopter in question. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All photographs of post-crash R-22 helicopters from 2003 through the present. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all documentation evidencing and/or reflecting post-crash fuel fed fires from 2003 through the present, involving R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or R0371 constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, 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. 38: All deposition transcripts of the following individuals, which are maintained by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and/or its counsel: a. Robert McSwain, McSwain Engineering, Inc. b. William "Bill" Carden, McSwain Engineering, Inc. c. Sri Kumar, Ph.D., Safety Research Institute d. Colin Sommer, Aeroscope, Inc. e. WilliamS. Lawrence, Colonel USMC (Ret' d), ConsulAir, Inc. f. Joseph L. Burton, M.D. g. Dr. Kenneth Orloff, Orloff Consulting RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated to the accident aircraft and/or outside the scope of this lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: To the extent that Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. maintains it is self-insured, produce any and all documents which evidence or reflect all financial limitations and/or restrictions relative to the incident in question. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; is duplicative of request number 6 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; and is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures. R0372 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All documents obtained from the NTSB including but not limited to photographs, statements and /or conclusions relative to the R-22 helicopter subject of this litigation. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All documents which evidence or reflect the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-22 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of 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. 42: All documents reflecting the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-44 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; 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 R0373 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. 43: All maintenance manuals associated with the Robinson R-22 Beta distributed during the regular course of business by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. over the last twelve years. RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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. Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/# Respectfully submitted, COATS & EVANS, P.C. /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003 Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0374 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 15th day of July, 2015. MARK T. MURRAY Via Email and/or Facsimile STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com DON SWAIM Via Email and/or Facsimile CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats R0375 7/22/2015 5:37:42 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 6185982 By: Tammy Tolman Filed: 7/22/2015 5:37:42 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 COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MIKE D. MILLER: Plaintiffs file this Motion to Compel requesting the Court to enter an order compelling ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Defendant (hereinafter “Robinson”), to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production. I. FACTS & BACKGROUND On September 10, 2012, Joyce Ates was a passenger in a 2007 Robinson manufactured R22 Beta II helicopter (serial number 4250 and registration number N281RG). The helicopter took off from Baytown Airport in Baytown, Texas at approximately 3:00 p.m. While flying in Harris County, Texas, the helicopter experienced a power loss and crashed. Within a minute of impacting the ground, the helicopter ignited into a fireball. Joyce Ates suffered serious injuries which eventually resulted in her death. Plaintiffs filed suit and immediately commenced the discovery process. On June 16, 2014 Plaintiffs served Defendant, Robinson, with their First Discovery Requests, including requests for production. Robinson, however, did not produce responsive documents. Thus, on March 20, R0376 2015 Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Robinson Helicopter Company’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests and on June 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Proposed Order Compelling Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc to Provide Plaintiff with Net Worth Information. On June 24, 2015 the Court entered an order compelling Defendant to provide its net worth information to Plaintiffs, See Exhibit B, and on July 07, 2015, the Court denied Defendants’ request for a stay, See Exhibit C. Plaintiffs’ Order to Compel documents from its First Request for Production is pending before this Court. See Exhibit D. Now Plaintiffs seek an Order requesting its Second Request for Production. On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs propounded their Second Request for Production on Defendant. On July 15, 2015, Defendant served Plaintiffs with its responses. Once again, Robinson failed to produce any responsive documents. See Exhibit A. Therefore, this Motion to Compel is necessary due to Robinson’s continued unwillingness to adequately respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production. II. ARGUMENT Robinson has refused to adequately respond to any of the propounded requests for production; it has either objected without any merit or has referred Plaintiffs to sources instead of directly providing the available requested documents and information. See id. Ultimately, Robinson has failed to demonstrate any good faith cooperation. Robinson generally objects to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production without any merit. Robinson argues Plaintiffs requests are ambiguous, vague, overbroad, oppressive, unlimited in time, and seeking privileged information. However, this not the case as the requests made by Plaintiffs are clear, timely, reasonable, to the point, and do not seek to gather privileged information. R0377 Robinson also argues Plaintiffs’ requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson argues a number of requests “seek documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence” because some requests are “relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft.” See Exhibit A. It is true that some requests are not limited to the helicopter model at issue; however, discovery is not limited to the specific helicopter model involved in this case. See In re Exmark Mfg. Co., 299 S.W.3d 519, 528 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, orig. proceeding) (“Fundamentally, the scope of discovery is obviously much broader that the scope of admissible evidence, and evidence of incidents involving other products besides the exact model at issue can be admissible, and therefore, obviously discoverable.”). Additionally, Defendant refuses to properly answer to Plaintiffs requests because certain definitions are “broad” and “seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Plaintiffs, in good faith, have defined their terms to the best of their ability. If certain definitions lack clarity, Plaintiffs argue and assert the requests made are not seeking to expand or impose greater obligations than those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Robinson insists in not producing responsive documents “because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what plaintiff contends caused the accident.” Ironically, the purpose of discovery is precisely for Plaintiff to better analyze and understand what all caused the accident at issue. Therefore, in order for Plaintiffs to establish a theory about the accident, Defendant needs to produce the requested information first. At this moment, Plaintiffs have not received any responsive documents from Robinson pertaining to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production. In the interest of time and in furtherance R0378 of this lawsuit, it is essential for Plaintiffs to obtain the discovery requested. Plaintiffs, therefore, request for this Court to compel the discovery requested and overrule Robinson’s objections. III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to enter an Order compelling the discovery requested by Plaintiffs, overrule Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production, compel Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. to fully respond to the same, and award Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs involved in the filing of this Motion. Plaintiffs also pray for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ By: _________________________ MARK T. MURRAY Texas Bar No. 14724810 Weslayan Tower, Suite 750 24 Greenway Plaza Houston, Texas 77046-2416 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (fax) Email: mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS R0379 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On July 16, 2015 and July 22, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to confer with defense counsel for Robinson Helicopter Inc. concerning Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production. Counsel for Defendant has not responded to these overtures and therefore the undersigned must presume defense counsel is opposed to Plaintiff’s motion. /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ _____________________ MARK T. MURRAY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections was forwarded to all known counsel of record by electronic case filing on this 22nd day of July, 2015. Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ ________________________ MARK T. MURRAY R0380 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, § § 11*" JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and 2 the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND RE UEST 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 EXHIBIT 1 § A R0381 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. R0382 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 infonnation 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 andlor proprietary information. 9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek infonnation 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 R0383 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. R0384 SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:documents, correspondence, and All 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 attomey-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 andlor 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 overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; is unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere "fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofion v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks infomtation not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery R0385 of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the pennissible 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 pennissible 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 N0. 3: Aand complete copy of all investigation full 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 set of requests for production; duplicate of request number 1 of Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ first 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 infonnation protected by the attomey-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 R0386 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: documents, correspondence, and All 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 infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-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 pennissible 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 detennine 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 infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation R0387 protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks infonnation 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 pennissible 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 detennine 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 andlor 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 N0. 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 Loflon v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks infonnation protected by the attomey—client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-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 pennissible 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 R0388 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 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 infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-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 pennissible 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 infonnation 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. RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash or incident during the last twelve years. R0389 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; seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks infonnation not within the actual or constructive control of this party; 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. 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. 9: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crashfincident 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; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constmctive control of this party; 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 10 R0390 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. 10: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death. 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; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; 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. 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 accid [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4074362. Public record. Not legal advice.