Lake Park-CS 980603 NICHO~, JACKSON, DILLA~, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P.
ROBE~ L DI~RD III A~omeys & Counselors at Law ~HN F. ROEHM III
R~E~ E. HAGER 18~ Lincoln Pl~a ~s~ c. ~RS~
P~R G. SM~ J. DAVID ~DD III
DAVID ~ BER~ 5~ No~h ~d
BRUCE ~ ST~RD Dall~, Tex~ 7:5201 R~ERT L DI~RD, JR.
(214) 965-~ H. L~S N~C~
F~ (214) 965-~10 ~WRENC~ W.
E-m~l N~HS ~ NJDHS.com
June 3, 1998
Christopher W. Bowley Via Facsimile (214) 849-5599
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill
& LaBoon, L.L.P.
2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 3000
Dallas, Texas 75201-8001
RE: Mitchell H. Reitman vs. The City of The Coppell, Texas; Cause No.
97-07962-H; In the District Court for Dallas County, Texas, 160th
Judicial District
Dear Mr. Bowley:
Please find enclosed the original Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's
First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Request.
for Production in the above-referenced case.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD,
HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P.
- By:
FJ. David Dod~l, Ill
JDD/pr
encls.
cc: City ofCoppell
18738
CAUSE NO. 97-07962-H
MITCHELL H. REITMAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VS. § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE CITY OF COPPELL § 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO: Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, Mr. Bryan Haynes, 2001 Ross Avenue,'
Suite 3000, Dallas, Texas 75201.
COMES NOW the City of Coppell, Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered cause of
action, and f'des this, its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories pursuant
to Rule 168 of TEXAS RULES OF Crv'IL PROC~.DUP, E.
Respectfully Submitted,
NICHOLS, J AC KS O N ,.D ILL ARD,
By: ~~te~{ 3L/' L~'v ~/ / ~ J.'David Dodd,
m
/ / Bar Card No. 00787374
{/ (JDD/slp)
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 North Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 965-9900
(214) 965-0010 FAX
ATrORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAhNTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 1 18672
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this the ~ day of June, 1998, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served all counsel of record by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, Postage
Prepaid, Certified Mail, and addressed as follows:
Mr. Bryan Haynes
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 3000
Dallas, Texas/~.~75201//].~~
/ J. David Dodd, llI -
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJF-.CTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF I/q'rERROGATORIES - Page 2 18672
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent said Interrogatory requests
information exempt from discovery as attorney work product pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 166b(3)(a) and privileged from discovery pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503.
Defendant also objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent said Interrogatory requests
information protected from discovery by the attorney/client privilege. Defendant further objects to
each and every Interrogatory to the extent said Interrogatory requests information protected from
discovery by Rule 166b(3)(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure regarding-party
communications. Defendant further objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent said
Interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant objects to the requested production of documents to the extent that the same can
be construed as calling for documents exempt from production on the basis of the attorney/client
privilege and/or the attorney work product exemption. These documents, to which objection is
made, include, but are not limited to, correspondence and notes in meetings between attorney and
client, documents prepared by attorneys in the course of their investigations of the subject matter of
the lawsuit and reports of any persons hired by the attorneys to investigate the subject matter of the
lawsuit, where no decision has been made to designate such persons as expert witnesses.
Defendant further objects to the production of certain of the requested documents on the ground
that said documents are not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, nor may the
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAIN I h-t-'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 3 18672
requested documents be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant is prepared to present the document upon which it asserts privilege the Court for in-
camera inspection should the same be necessary.
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all persons with knowledge of relevant facts. For each individual listed, provide a
brief statement of the facts, circumstances or documents as to which that individual has such
knowledge.
ANSWER: _
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it requests thc knowledge of the listed
person. This request is also objectionable in that it is beyond the scope of discovery as provided by
the Tex. R. Civ. P. This request is also objectionable because it is global, vague, general and
ambiguous. This request is also objectionable because the Defendant cannot ascertain what Plaintiff
would consider as "relevant facts." This request is also objectionable because it attempts to inquire
into matters within the attorney/client and attorney work product privilege which are protected
pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(e) and Tex. R. Evid. 503.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers as follows:
Ken Griffin
City Engineer
255 Parkway Blvd.
P. O. Box 478
(972)462-0022
Kathleen Roach
City Secretary
255 Parkway Blvd.
P. O. Box 478
(972)462-0022
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAJlqTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIE. S - Page 4 18672
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
IDENTIFY each expert witness whom you or your attorneys plan to call to testify in this
case and further state:
a) The subject matter upon which each expert is expected to testify;
b) The mental impressions and opinions held by each expert and a summary of each
expert's opinion);
c) The facts upon which each expert relies and which form the basis of the mental
impressions and opinions held by each expert including, but not limited to, the
factual observations, tests, supporting data, calculations, photographs, opinions,
and/or conclusions reached by each expert.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it requests a summary of each expert's
opinion because it is beyond the scope of discovery allowed by Rule 166b(2)(e), Tex. R. Civ. P.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant answers as follows:
Ken Griffin
City Engineer
255 Parkway Blvd.
P. O. Box 478
(972)462-0022
Ken Griffin will testify about the process for obtaining a license to build on City property,
the requirement of getting a permit to build a fence, the process by which the City obtained the
property, as well as the general policies and practices relating to the subject matter of this case.
Peter G. Smith
Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P.
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 North Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214)965-9900
Peter G. Smith or another attorney from the firm of Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager &
Smith, L.L.P., will testify as to reasonable and necessary attorneys fees.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTI~S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 5 18672
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Please identify each expert who may not be called as a witness in this case, but who was
used for consultation, and whose work product forms a basis, either in whole or in part, of the
opinions of an expert who is to be called by you and/or your attorneys as a witness, or whose
opinions or conclusions have been reviewed by a testifying expert and state the mental impressions
and opinions held by the expert in a summary of each expert's opinion.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it seeks the identity, mental impressions, opinions
and/or documents or tangible things containing information relating to consulting experts either
informally consulted by or specially retained in anticipation of litigation or preparation of trial and'
these consulting experts' opinions or impressions were not reviewed by any testifying expert and
therefore are protected from discovery pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(b).
Subject to the foregoing objection, Defendant would state that no experts have been
consulted at this time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify all requests to the Defendant to grant any license since January 1, 1990, and for
each, indicate whether each such request was granted or denied.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, burdensome and calls for information
which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify all requests to the Defendant to abandon an easement owned or controlled by the
Defendant since January 1, 1990, and for each, indicate whether each request was granted or
denied.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, burdensome and calls for information
which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 6 18672
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all requests to the Defendant to alter any sign ordinance or waive any violation of
any sign ordinance since January 1, 1990, and for each, indicate whether each request was granted
or denied.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, burdensome and calls for information
which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Please describe how the Defendant acquired title to the property immediately bel~nd the
subject property on which Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is encroaching.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous because
the term "subject property" is undefined.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Please describe how the Defendant was supposed to acquire the title to the property
immediately behind the subject property, on which Defendant alleges Plaintiff is encroaching under
the local government code of the Defendant.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous because
the term "Subject Property" is undefined. Defendant further objects to this request because it is
impermissibly vague and ambiguous because the term "local government code of the Defendant" is
undefined. Defendant further objects to this request because it requests the same information as
Interrogatory No. 7.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
If you or your attorneys have obtained witness statements or have had conversations,
dealings, conferences, or discussions with any past or present employee or representative of
DEFENDANTS RF.3PONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 7 18672
Reitman, please describe each and every such written statement, conference, discussion,
conversation, or dealing and identify each representative of Reitman who was involved.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for
information which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is also objectionable
because it attempts to inquire into matters within the attorney/client and attorney work product
privilege which are protected pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(e) and Tex. R. Evid. 503. This
request is also objectionable because it requests certain information which is exempt pursuant to
Rule 166b(3)(a),Tex. R. Civ. P.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
If you have ever been a party plaintiff or a party defendant to a lawsuit other than the present
case, state the nature of the lawsuit, style, cause number, court, and opposing party of each such
lawsuit.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for
information which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 8 18672
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
[~O/4 QqI~ ~ Ft-~m , who after being by me duly sworn and on his oath deposed and says that he
is the Ci~'x/~:~o,l~la ~-e~: for the City of Coppell, Texas, and that he has read the above and'
foregoing Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and that_every
statement contained therein is within his personal knowledge and is tree and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this~~-~'9--'' day of June, 1998, to certify
which witness my hand and official seal.
· ~
J '. My Commission Expires:
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 9 18672
CAUSE NO. 97-07962-H
MITCHELL H. REITMAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VS. § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE CITY OF COPPELL § 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO: Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, Mr. Bryan Haynes, 2001 Ross Avenue,
Suite 3000, Dallas, Texas 75201.
COMES NOW the City of Coppell, Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered cause of
action, and files this, its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Request for Production
pursuant to Rule 166b of TEXAS RULES OF C~qL PROCEDURE.
Respectfully Submitted,
NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD, HAGER &~, L.L.P.
By: ~ ~/~
/;~J. David Dodd, III
///Bar Card No. 00787374
0DD/slp)
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 North Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 965-9900
(214) 965-0010 FAX
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PI..AINTI~S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page I 18672
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this the ~ day of June, 1998, a tree and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served all counsel of record by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, Postage
Prepaid, Certified Mail, and addressed as follows:
Mr. Bryan Haynes
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 3000
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dodd, Ill
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 2 18672
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant objects to each and every Request to the extent it requests information exempt
from discovery as attomey work product and privileged from discovery. Defendant also objects to
each and every Request to the extent it requests information protected from discovery by the
attorney/client privilege. Defendant further objects to each and every Request to the extent it
requests information protected from discovery regarding party communications. Defendant further
objects to each and every Request to the extent it is not relevant to the subject matter of thc pending
action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant objects to the requested production of documents to the extent that the same can
bc construed as calling for documents exempt from production on the basis of the attomey/client
privilege and/or the attorney work product exemption. These documents, to which objection is
made, include, but are not limited to, correspondence and notes in meetings between attorney and
client, documents prepared by attorneys in the course of their investigations of the subject matter of
the lawsuit and reports of any persons hired by the attorneys to investigate the subject matter of the
lawsuit, where no decision has been made to designate such persons as expert witnesses.
Defendant further objects to the production of certain requested documents on the ground that said
documents are not relevant to the subject matter of thc pending action, nor may the requested
documents be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant is
prepared to present the document upon which it asserts privilege the Court for in-camera inspection
should the same be necessary.
DEFF, NDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 3 18672
Defendant specifically objects to the specific instructions given in paragraph 1 of the
instruction section. Instructions lb-l; are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of
discovery.
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Videotapes, movies or audio recordings of the August 12, 1997 meeting of the City
Council of the City of Coppell, when Reitman's request for a license was denied.
ANSWER:
To the extent such videotapes, movies, or audio recordings exist and are in the care or
custody of the Defendant, they will be made available for inspection and copying at the office of
Defendant's counsel, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P. at a mutually agreed time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Requests for licenses, abandonments of easements or exceptions to the sign ordinances
submitted to the City of Coppell since January 1, 1990.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it is overbroad, impermissibly vague and
ambiguous because the term "licenses, abandonments of easements or exceptions to the sign
ordinances" is undefined. This request is also objectionable because it is unduly burdensome,
overbroad and calls for information which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this
action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
The minutes of the August 12, 1997 meeting of the City Council of the City of Coppell.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 4 18672
ANSWER:
The Defendant has already provided a copy of the requested minutes as an exhibit to the
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Materials provided to, reviewed by or prepared by any expert who may bc called as a
witness at trial.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it requests materials that are outside the scope
of discovery permitted by Rule 166b(2)(e) of the Tex. R. Civ. P. This request is also
objectionable because it attempts to inquire into matters within the attorney/client and a~tomcy
work product privilege which are protected pursuant to Tcx. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(e) and Tcx. R.
Evid. 503. This request is also objectionable because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous
because the term "materials" is not defined. Defendant cannot ascertain the meaning of same.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Notes and/or reports made by an expert who may be called as a witness at trial of the
Subject Lawsuit.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it requests materials that are outside the scope
of discovery permitted by Rule 166b(2)(e) of the Tex. R. Civ. P. This request is also
objectionable because it attempts to inquire into matters within the attorney/client and attorney
work product privilege which are protected pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(3)(e) and Tex. R.
Evid. 503. This request is also objectionable because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous
because the term "materials" is not defined. Defendant cannot ascertain the meaning of same.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Documents prepared by or for any witness in order to refresh the witness' recollection.
DEFENDANTS RESFONS~ AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAIN I w~'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 5 18672
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it attempts to inquire into matters within the
attorney/client and attorney work product privilege which are protected pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P.
166b(3)(e) and Tex. R. Evid. 503.
This request is objectionable because it attempts to inquire into witness statements made
subsequent to this occurrence and in connection with the investigation and defense of this suit or in
anticipation of litigation and therefore are not discoverable pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(2)(g)
and (3)(c).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Contracts or other written agreements entered into with any expert who may be called as
a witness at trial or any consulting expert whose work product has been reviewed by a te~'tifying
expert.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad and calls for information which is
totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is also objectionable because it is beyond the
scope of discovery under Rule 166b(2)(e), Tex. R. Civ. P.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Bills, invoices, statements or other requests for payment, together with all attachments
and supporting documentation, reflecting charges for the time or services of any expert who may
be called as a witness at trial or whose work product has been reviewed by a testifying expert.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad and calls for information which is
totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is also objectionable because it is beyond the
scope of discovery under Rule 166b(2)(e), Tex. R. Civ. P.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Documents reflecting that the land immediately behind Reitman's property is owned by
the City of Coppell.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 6 18672
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous in that
the phrase "land immediately behind Reitman's property" is not defined and Defendant cannot
ascertain Plaintiff's meaning. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
Defendant would state that all nonprivileged documents will be made available for inspection
and copying at the office of Defendant's counsel, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith,
L.L.P., 1800 Lincoln Plaza, 500 North Akard, Dallas, Texas 75201, at a mutually agreed time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
A current resume, curriculum vitae or other similar documents describing the education,'
training, work history or experience of each expert who may be called as a witness at trial.
ANSWER: -
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would state that all
nonprivileged documents will be made available for inspection and copying at the office of
Defendant's counsel, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Lincoln Plaza, 500
North Akard, Dallas, Texas 75201, at a mutually agreed time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
A copy of the minutes of any meeting of the City Council of the City of Coppell since
January 1, 1990 in which the City Council denied a request for a license, an abandonment of an
easement or an exception to any sign ordinance.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, burdensome and calls for information
which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Documents reflecting communications by or between the members of the City Council of
the City of Coppell concerning the request and/or denial of the license at issue in the present case
or Reitman as an individual.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 7 18672
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it requests party communications which are
exempt from discovery pursuant to Rule 166b(3)(d) of the Tex. R. Civ. P. This request is also
objectionable because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous because the phrase "Reitman as
an Individual" which is unclear and undefined and Defendant cannot ascertain its meaning.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant would state that no
document exists.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
True, correct and legible copies of all bills, statements and other writings reflecting
attorneys' fees, for which the City of Coppell seeks recovery in this lawsuit. _
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it attempts to inquire into matters within the
attorney/client and attorney work product privilege which are protected pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P.
166b(3)(e) and Tex. R. Evid. 503.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would state that all
nonprivileged documents will be made available for inspection and copying at the office of
Defendant's counsel, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Lincoln Plaza, 500
North Akard, Dallas, Texas 75201, at a mutually agreed time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Documents reflecting the alleged citizen complaint concerning the fence built behind
Reitman's house which is at issue in the present case.
ANSWER:
This request is objectionable because it is overbroad, burdensome and calls for information
which is totally irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action, and is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would state that all
nonprivileged documents, to the extent they exist and are in the custody and control of
Defendant, will be made available for inspection and copying at the office of Defendant's
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 8 18672
counsel, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Lincoln Plaza, 500 North
Akard, Dallas, Texas 75201, at a mutually agreed time.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
Documents reflecting the ownership, change in ownership and change in the flood plain
with respect to the property immediately behind Reitman's property which is at issue in this case.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it is impermissibly vague and ambiguous in that
the phrase "ownership, change in ownership and change in flood plain" is not defined and'
Defendant cannot ascertain Plaintiff's meaning. Defendant also objects to this request because it
is impermissibly vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "property immediately behind
Reitman's property" is not defined and Defendant cannot ascertain Plaintiff's meaning. §ubject
to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would state that all nonprivileged
documents will be made available for inspection and copying at the office of Defendant's
counsel, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Lincoln Plaza, 500 North
Akard, Dallas, Texas 75201, at a mutually agreed time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
Documents identified in response to Answers to First Set of Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this request because it is overbroad, impermissibly vague and
ambiguous.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAIN 1 ~"S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - Page 9 18672