You are on page 1of 5

Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 316

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

AVI S. ADELMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-2579

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT and
STEPHANIE BRANCH, individually and in
her official capacity as a Dallas Area Rapid
Transit Police Officer,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGE STICKNEYS MAY 4, 2017


ORDER [DKT. #21] AND REQUST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION

On May 4, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff Avi S. Adelmans Motion to Compel

in its entirety, ordering DART to provide the responses and documents responsive to the

requests for production, requests for admission, and interrogatories set forth on page two

of Plaintiffs Notice of Partial Resolution. (Dkt. #21.) Although DART provided

supplemental discovery responses and documents, DART continues to assert objections

and to provide evasive and incomplete answers to discovery requests that the Court

already adjudicated in its May 4, 2017 Order. DARTs supplemental discovery responses

do not comply with the Courts Order, and Adelman, thus, brings this Motion to enforce

the Order. Adelman also requests expedited consideration of this Motion because (a) the

Court has already been adjudicated these issues; and (b) pretrial deadlines and scheduled

depositions are approaching.

1
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID 317

ARGUMENT

This Court granted Adelmans Motion to Compel on May 4, 2017 and ordered

DART to answer several discovery requests and produce responsive documents. DART

failed to comply with the Courts Order with regard to RFP No. 18 and RFA Nos. 22, 23,

26-29, 36, and 51.

RFP No. 18. RFP No. 18 requested [a]ll documents relating to any prior DART

policies and procedures regarding photography and the right to photograph on DART

property, including but not limited to any policy that was in effect prior to July 1, 2014.

(App. 6.) DART stated in its supplemental response to this request that it has requested

and searched for documents related to this RFP and DART has no other responsive

documents. (Id.) But DART also continues to assert a relevance objection, despite the

Courts Order ordering DART to produce all responsive documents. (Id.) Because

DART continues to assert an objection, despite the Courts Order, Adelman cannot

determine whether DART is withholding responsive documents. See Heller v. City of

Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 486-87 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (explaining that discovery responses

conditioned on an objection with no further explanation prevent the requesting party

from determining whether documents are being withheld subject to the objection).

RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and 51. DART served evasive and non-responsive

answers to these requestswhich was the very reason Adelman filed his Motion to

Compel in the first place. (See App. 15-17, 19, 21-22, RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and

51.) After the Court ordered DART to supplement its answers to these requests, DART

2
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID 318

simply changed the wording of the answers without providing responsive and complete

responses. (Id.)

DARTs noncompliance with the Courts Order is further illustrated by the

Submission Re: Plaintiffs Motion to Compel that DART submitted long after the

Courts Order. In the Submission, DART treated the matter like a discovery dispute

that had yet to be adjudicated by the Court, noting that DART agreed to review some

of its objections and responses. (Dkt. #27.) But there was nothing for DART to agree

to review, as the Court had already ordered DART to serve supplemental discovery

responses. In light of the Courts Order, DART was not free to stand on any objections

or to serve evasive supplemental discovery responses.

REQUESTED RELIEF

DART failed to comply with the Courts May 4, 2017 Order regarding RFP No.

18 and RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and 51. Adelman respectfully requests that the

Court again overrule DARTs objection to RFP No. 18 and order DART to either (a)

produce additional responsive documents it is withholding based on its objection, or (b)

certify in writing that it has produced all responsive documents. With regard to the

Requests for Admission, DARTs failure to comply with the Courts Order has deprived

Adelman of relevant and important information relating to Adelmans claims. Adelman,

thus, requests that DART be prohibited from introducing evidence or argument at trial

relating to the subject matter of RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and 51, which include the

following topics: (a) whether Adelmans arrest was consistent with DARTs photography

policy; (b) DARTs training of its police officers relating to photography; (c) the

3
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID 319

circumstances under which DART police are permitted to issue criminal trespass

warnings; and (d) whether Lieutenant Lindsey recommended Officer Branchs

termination. This relief is appropriate in light of DARTs repeated refusal to provide

good faith answers to these requests, even when the Court ordered DART to do so. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). Alternatively, Adelman requests that the Court again

order DART to provide complete, non-evasive answers to RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36,

and 51. Adelman further requests expedited consideration of this Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

REESE GORDON MARKETOS LLP

By: /s/ Tyler J. Bexley


Tyler J. Bexley
State Bar No. 24073923
750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75201-3202
214.382.9810 telephone
214.501.0731 facsimile
tyler.bexley@rgmfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

4
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID 320

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that, on May 11, 2017, I conferred with Gene Gamez, lead counsel
for DART, regarding the discovery that was already subject to the Courts May 4, 2017
Order. Mr. Gamez explained DARTs position with regard to each of the disputed
discovery requests, and then DART produced supplemental responses that did not comply
with the Courts Order. Plaintiff therefore submits this Motion as opposed.

s/ Tyler J. Bexley

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that, on May 23, 2017, the foregoing document was
submitted to the clerk of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the
electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) of the court. I certify that the document was
served on all known counsel of record electronically as authorized by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).

s/ Tyler J. Bexley