in Re Manhattan Vaughn, JVP

ACCEPTED 01-15-00349-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/19/2015 3:52:15 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NO. 01-15-00349-CV FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5/19/2015 3:52:15 PM 1•1 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HOUSTON CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

IN RE MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP

On Appeal From the 801hJudicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2013-76550

RESPONSE TO MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Respectfully Submitted,

THE GIBSON LAW f"IRM

Jason A. Gibson State Bar No. 24000606 Casey L. Jordan State Bar No. 24090599 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 E-mail: efile@jag-lawfirm.com Ph: (713) 650-1010 Fax: (713) 650-1011

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 52.3(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellants give the following identity of parties and counsel of record.

HONORABLE LARRY WEIMAN, 801 H Judicial District Court of Harris County, Respondent

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL GARCIA and ORBELINDA HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA, Minors, Plaintiffs and Real Parties in Interest

Represented by: Jason A. Gibson Casey L. Jordan THE GIBSON LAW F'IRM The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph: (713) 650-1010 Fax: (713) 650-1011

MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, DefendantandRelator

Represented by: Mike Miller JJ. Knauff Clark C. Butler The Miller Law Firm 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950 Dallas, Texas 775219 Ph: (469) 916-2552 Fax: (469) 916-2555

TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP, TEXAS CUTTING & CORING GP, INC., LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC., Defendants

Represented by: Mike Miller JJ. Knauff Clark C. Butler The Miller Law Firm 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950 Dallas, Texas 775219 Ph: (469) 916-2552 Fax: (469) 916-2555

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ........................ .

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................... iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................... v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................. 2

ISSUES PRESENTED ....................................... 3

Was Relator's due process violated after the court 1) considered argument at four separate hearings on Relator's privilege claim; 2) admitted two affidavits Relater offered as evidence in support of its claim; 3) allowed Relater to file a privilege log seven months after the deadline to do so and 4) reviewed the documents at issue in camera for two months before ruling? ................. 3

Did Relater waive its right to assert privilege when it concealed requested documents for seven months and failed to make a withholding statement? .................................. 3

Are Gary Lambert's investigation report and related documents, generated in the ordinary course of business and as required by Relator's own operating policies and procedures, attorney work- product or attorney-client communications? ................... 3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................... 4

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................ 5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT & EVENTS ........................ 10

ARGUMENT .............................................. 12

The Court Did Not Violate Relator's Right to Due Process ...... 13 Relater Waived Right to Assert Any Privilege ................ 15 The Documents Are Not Work Product ..................... 20 When Relator's Counsel "Arrived" On-Site Is Irrelevant ......... 24 The Documents Do Not Contain Attorney-Client Communications ...................................... 26

iii

CONCLUSION ............................................ 28

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ..................................... 29

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS ................................. 30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................. 31

INDEX TO APPENDIX ...................................... 32

VERIFICATION ............................................ 33

iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

In re Anderson, 163 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ....... 15,18,19

In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2003) ............................... 26, 27

In re E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. 2004) ............................... 13, 14

In re Maher, 143 S.W.3d 907 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) ....... 18, 20, 27

In re Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2 d 917, 924 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) ...... 13

Nat'/ Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993) .............................. 18,20

STATUTES

TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.3(a) ................................... 15, 19 TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.4(a) ..................................... 13 TEX. R. C1v. P. 199.6 ........................................ 13

TEX. R. EVID. 503 ........................................ 26, 27

v

NO. 01-15-00349-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HOUSTON

IN RE MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP

On Appeal From the 1 80 Judicial District Court h

of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2013-76550

RESPONSE TO MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL GARCIA; and ORBELINDA HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA, Minors ("Real Parties In Interest" or "Plaintiffs"), file this Response to Relater, MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and would respectfully show the following:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: This is a wrongful death case. Relator's negligence caused the caterpillar skid steer Angel Garcia was operating to flip over the side of the fifth floor ramp of Kyle Field Stadium at Texas A&M University. During the fall Angel Garcia suffered traumatic life-ending injuries.

Trial Judge & Court: The Honorable Judge Larry Weiman, 801h Judicial District, Harris County, Texas

Trial Court's Disposition: Granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Manhattan IVaughn, JVP's Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production and Ordered production of documents wrongfully withheld by Relator.

11. ISSUES PRESENTED

A. Was Relator's due process violated after the court 1) considered argument at four separate hearings on Relator's privilege claim; 2) admitted two affidavits Relater offered as evidence in support of its claim; 3) allowed Relater to file a privilege log seven months after the deadline to do so and 4) reviewed the documents at issue in camera for two months before ruling?

B. Did Relater waive its right to assert privilege when it concealed requested documents for seven months and failed to make a withholding statement?

C. Are Relator's investigation report and related documents, generated in the ordinary course of business and as required by Relator's own operating policies and procedures, attorney work-product or attorney-client communications?

111. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On December 3, 2013, 28 year-old Angel Garcia sustained fatal injuries from a four-story fall while working on the Kyle Field renovation project in College Station, Texas. Appendix 1, Pl.s' Sec. Am. Pet. Specifically, Garcia's injuries were caused when a concrete beam cut loose from the structure caused the Caterpillar Skidsteer he operated to flip over the edge of the fourth floor ramp. Id. 2. Garcia was an employee of Lindamood Demolition, Inc., an entity assisting in the removal of concrete debris on the morning of December 3, 2013. Id. The work being performed was a part of the renovation at Kyle Field to expand seating from 82,600 to 102,500. Id. Relater, Manhattan I Vaughn, JVP, served as general contractor for the entire project. Id. At approximately 11 :30 a.m., Garcia was operating a Caterpillar Skid Steer Loader on the 4th floor spiral ramp in the northeast portion of Kyle Field. Id. Garcia was using the Caterpillar's grapple bucket to catch and support concrete cut loose as a result of the demolition. Id. 3. Shortly before noon, a portion of concrete larger than the Caterpillar was able to control, forced the skid steer and Garcia over the edge of the fourth floor ramp. Id. The skid steer hit a steel beam on the way down, causing it to *5 flip repeatedly. Id. During the fall, Garcia was ejected and landed in a pile of rubble, back first, suffering massive trauma to his torso and head. Id. 4. An ambulance transported Garcia to the emergency room in Bryan, Texas. Id. Despite their efforts, 28 year-old Garcia succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead at St. Joseph Hospital. Id. Garcia is survived by his mother, Josefina Garcia, and his two minor children, Ashley and Bryan. Id.

IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

5. For seven months, Relater concealed the existence of more than twelve hundred (1200) pages of documents responsive to Pl.s' First Requests for Production. See Appendix 2, Pl.s' First Requests for Production; see also Relator's Appendix 6. Plaintiffs served their first requests on March 11, 2014. See Appendix 2. On June 12, 2014, Plaintiffs' filed their first Motion to Compel Relator's responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production and filed a supplement to the motion on July 31, 2014. See Appendix 3, Pl.s' Second Mot. to Compel Def.'s Ans. and Responses to Written Disc. *6 6. Relater filed a response and the Court heard arguments regarding Plaintiffs' motion. See Appendix 4, Def.'s Responses to Plaintiffs' Sec. Mot. to Compel Def.'s Ans. and Responses to Written Disc. At no time, however, did Relater inform Plaintiffs or the Court it was ever withholding documents -much less 1200 pages worth - responsive to the requests. See id; see also Relator's Appendix 3. 7. Plaintiffs only learned of the withheld documents when former Manhattan I Vaughn Senior Safety Manager, Gary Lambert, informed Plaintiffs of their existence. See Relator's Appendix 5, Pl.s' Request for Emergency Hearing; see also Relator's Appendix 7, Pl.s' Mot. to Compel Production of Safety Director's Incident Report; see also Relator's Appendix 16, Pl.s' Am. Third Mot. to Compel Manhattan, Vaughn, JVP's Responses to Pl.s' Requests for Production at Exhibits A and I. Specifically, Mr. Lambert informed Plaintiffs he conducted a safety investigation into Garcia's death and provided Relater a report of his findings as well as those from Thomas Kramer and other witnesses. See id. 8. Upon learning of Lambert's investigation, Plaintiffs made several attempts to obtain a copy of the investigation documents from Relater without court intervention. See Relator's Appendix 5, at Exhibit G. However, Relator *7 refused to cooperate and denied such documents existed. See id; see also Relator's Appendix 6, Relator's Letter Regarding Non-Existence of Report. 9. Plaintiffs then requested an emergency hearing regarding the report. At the emergency hearing on November 21, 2014, Plaintiffs learned Relater not only concealed Mr. Lambert's report, but also an entire box of documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests served over eight months ago. See Relator's Appendix 5. 10. Plaintiffs' filed a Motion to Compel the report and the Court heard arguments regarding the same on December 5, 2014. See Relator's Appendix 7; see also Relator's Appendix 10, Reporter's Record Dec. 5, 2014. At that time the Court ruled Relater had insufficient evidence to support its work-product privilege claim. Id. at 57/4-13. 11. As a result, the Court instructed Relater to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests or submit a privilege log for documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege for in camera review. Id. Contrary to the Court's instruction, Relater produced a privilege log claiming attorney-client and work-product privileges for all documents contained in the box. See Relator's Appendix 16 at Exhibit F. *8 12. The privilege log, provided on December 8, 2014, revealed Relator wrongfully concealed 1,250 pages of documents responsive to thirty-seven of Plaintiffs' discovery requests served more than eight months before. See id. Another emergency hearing was held on December 10, 2014 in which Plaintiffs again requested Relator produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production. See Relator's Appendix 11 and 12. 13. On December 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Third Motion to Compel Manhattan IVaughn, JVP's Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production. See Relator's Appendix 14, Pl.s' Third Mot. to Compel Manhattan, Vaughn, JVP's Responses to Pl.s' Requests for Production. On the same date, Plaintiffs served Defendants notice the motion would be heard before the Court on January 23, 2015. See Relator's Appendix 15, Notice of Hearing. Seven days before the hearing, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Third Motion to Compel. See Relator's Appendix 16. 14. Although 1) the very same issues had been before the court at least three times prior; 2) Relator had more than one month's notice of the hearing date and 3) Defendant had seven days to review and respond to the amended pleading, Defendant objected to the timeliness of the hearing, claiming a lack of notice. See Relator's Appendix 5, 10 and12. *9 15. At the hearing, the Court heard Relator's objections and ruled:

[Plaintiffs' First Amended Third Motion to Compel] was filed seven days before the hearing. The hearing was noticed a month ago. I'm going to overrule your objection. We are going to proceed. The Court finds that there was sufficient notice as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and our local rules.

Relator's Appendix 20, Reporters Record Jan. 23, 2015 at 12/11-18. 16. The Court also ordered Relator to produce all of the documents on its privilege log for in camera review. Id. at 69/10-15. Subsequently, Relator drastically revised its log, withdrawing privilege claims for more than 1,000 pages of documents. See Relator's Appendix 4, List of Documents Produced from Box. 17. On April 10, 2015, the trial court ruled the remaining 150+ pages of documents, except for one sentence, were also not privileged. See Relator's Appendix 22, Order Granting Pl.s' Mot. to Compel Defendant's Responses To Plaintiffs' Requests for Production. Relator was ordered to produce the documents within seven days. Id. Defendants then produced another 100+ pages of documents from Lambert's box and filed this Petition for Writ of Mandamus. See Relator's Appendix 4. 18. The only documents now at issue are those directly related to Gary Lambert's investigation. See id. Specifically, the documents are identified on *10 Relator's privilege log as 1) MV_Lambert.000001-.000012 "Typed Summary of Gary Lambert Investigation Notes" and 2) MV_Lambert.000013-.000114 "Handwritten and Typed Notes made by Gary Lambert between December 3, 2013 - December 5, 2013." See id.

v. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT & EVENTS

19. This dispute began when Lambert contacted The Gibson Law Firm and informed Plaintiffs' counsel he investigated the incident surrounding Angel

Garcia's death. At the time of Garcia's death, Lambert was Manhattan I Vaughn's Safety Manager and the most senior safety person on the Kyle Field

construction project. See Relator's Appendix 16 at Exhibits A, Band I. 20. Over the course of numerous telephone calls, e-mails and text messages, Lambert stated: 1) he was not represented by defense counsel; 2) he generated a lengthy report documenting his investigation; and 3) he left his report, notes and witness statements in a box labeled "Lindamood Incident" on his desk at the job site when he left his employment with MV. See id. 21. Plaintiffs requested all investigative reports related to the incident early on in the case, over a year ago. See Appendix 2. Although Relator's counsel produced other incident reports and witness statements for other Defendants *11 in the case and other incidents on site, Relator's report for Garcia's death was never disclosed or produced. See Relator's Appendix 16; see also Relator's Appendix 4. Lambert conducted the investigation because he was required to do so by MV's policies and procedures, which existed prior to the incident. See Relator's Appendix 6, Aft. of Thomas Kramer at 3; see also Relator's Appendix 16 at Exhibit J .000653-.000660. 22. Armed with the knowledge obtained from Lambert, Plaintiffs notified Relator's counsel ("Miller") of the report. See Relator's Appendix 5, at Exhibit G. At first, Miller indicated "we know nothing about a report," taking the position he did not have a clue about a report but would "look into it." 23. After Plaintiffs' brought the matter to the attention of the Court, Miller changed his tune, acknowledging: 1) Lambert did conduct an investigation into the events surrounding Garcia's death and 2) he left an entire box of documents related to that investigation in Relator's possession. See Relator's Appendix 6. 24. After four hearings on the issue, several months of in camera review and more than a year after they were requested, the Court ordered Relator to produce Lambert's investigation documents and others contained in the box. See Relator's Appendix 22.

VI. ARGUMENT

25. The Court must deny Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and uphold the trial court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Relator's Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production because:

• • Relator had proper notice of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel heard on January 23, 2015 and the three hearings addressing the same issue that occurred prior to;
• • Gary Lambert's incident report and related documents are responsive to Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production;
• • Relator wrongfully concealed the documents for seven months;
• • Relator waived the right to assert privilege by failing to disclose it was withholding the documents;
• • The report is not protected by either work product or attorney-client privilege because the primary motivating purpose was not litigation;
• • The investigation was not conducted at the request of counsel; and
• • Gary Lambert generated the investigation report and related documents in the ordinary course of business as required by Relator's own operating policies and procedures.

A. THE COURT DID NOT VIOLATE RELATOR'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

26. The Court did not violate Relator's right to due process because 1) Relater not only had a month's notice of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Amended Third Motion to Compel; but also 2) the same matter was properly noticed and before the court several times before. 27. In the five months before the court signed the order at issue, the court heard argument regarding Relaters privilege claim four separate times. See Relator's Appendix 5, 7, 11 and 20. Therefore, Relater had four separate opportunities to provide argument and evidence to support its claim. 28. Once a hearing is set, the party resisting discovery must produce evidence necessary to support the claim for privilege. See TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.4(a), 199.6; see also In re E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 227 (Tex.2004). Such evidence may be in the form of live testimony or an affidavit. See id. Affidavits must be served at least seven days before the hearing. See TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.4(a), 199.6; see also In re Monsanto Co. 998 S.W.2d 917, 924 (Tex.App.- Waco 1999, orig. proceeding). However, when a party is resisting discovery on the grounds of privilege an inspection of the documents themselves may be the only adequate evidence to evaluate the claim. See In re E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. at 223. *14 29. Over the course of the multiple hearings on this matter, Relater offered two different affidavits in support of its privilege claim. See Relator's Appendix 13, Order Admitting Tom Kramer Affidavit; see also Relator's Appendix 20 at 62/15-17. Upon review of the affidavits and argument by counsel, the Court determined an in camera inspection of the documents was necessary. On two separate occasions, the court ordered Relater to provide Lambert's report and related documents for in camera inspection. See Relator's Appendix 12 at 57/4-13; see also Relator's Appendix 20 at 69/10-15. 30. It was only after reviewing the documents themselves, the court determined Lambert's report and related documents were not attorney work product and did not contain attorney client communications. See Relator's Appendix 22. Therefore, the Court's order requiring Relater to produce the documents was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate Relator's right to due process. See In re E. /. Dupont de Nemours & Co. at 223 (Holding once a party puts on evidence in support of its claim for privilege and tenders the documents to the court, the court must conduct an in camera review before deciding whether to compel production.). *15 8. RELATOR WAIVED RIGHT TO ASSERT ANY PRIVILEGE 31. Although the court allowed Relator to put on evidence in support of its claim, Relator actually waived its right to even assert a privilege claim by failing to notify Plaintiffs it was withholding requested documents. 32. In order to lawfully withhold a requested document, a party must:

a. Assert a privilege; and

b. Provide notice a requested document has been withheld. TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.3(a) (emphasis added). The privilege must be asserted and a withholding statement must be made prior to the deadline to respond to discovery. See TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.3(a), see also In re Anderson, 163 S.W.3d 136, 142 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.). 33. Relator's responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production were due April 30, 2014. See Appendix 2. Lambert's report and other investigation documents are responsive to several of those requests, including:

Request No. 8. All documents related to inspections done on the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to the area where Angel Garcia was working and killed.

Request No. 11 All documents identifying safety issues or concerns as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation, including but not limited to the demolition process and the work being performed by Angel Garcia and his employer.

Request No. 12 All documents mentioning actions taken by defendants to correct any safety issues that were identified, as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation project.

Request No. 22 All documentation and correspondence discussing engineering surveys performed by any party or entity, related to the demolition of structural concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.850(a).

Request No. 26 All documents reflecting observations by any party or person regarding the nature of spalling (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition activities prior to the time of the subject incident.

Request No. 34 All documents reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan I Vaughn or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the incident in question.

Request No. 35 All documents reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan I Vaughn or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the events leading up to the subject incident, or the incident itself.

Request No. 38 All reports of accidents, on the job injuries or accident statistics related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

Request No. 40 All reports of the incident made by any party or person.

Request No. 42 All job-site safety inspection reports (dated from the start of construction of the Kyle Field renovation project through12/31/2013).

Request No. 46 All reports generated as a result of the subject incident.

Request No. 48 All documents related to any investigation conducted as a result of the incident in question.

34. On April 30, 2014, Relater served its objections and responses to Plaintiffs' requests. See Relator's Appendix 3. Relater never asserted any privilege in response to Request No.'s 11, 12, 22, 35, 38, 42 and never notified Plaintiffs it was withholding documents. See id. *18 35. A failure to properly comply with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure for asserting a privilege waives the right to that privilege. See In re Anderson, 163 S.W.3d at 142; see also In re Maher, 143 S.W.3d 907, 914 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) citing to Nat'/ Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 204 (Tex. 1993)). In In re Anderson, the Plaintiff learned a responsive document had been withheld during a deposition taken after the deadline to produce the document. See In re Anderson, 163 S.W.3d at 142. Prior to the deposition, the Defendant failed to assert privilege or notify the Plaintiff it was withholding the document. See id. Upon learning of the document's existence, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production. See id. The trial court denied the Plaintiff's motion and the Plaintiff petitioned for writ of mandamus. See id. 36. Upon review, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held:

Here, the [Defendant] did not comply with rule 193(a). When it was served with [Plaintiff's] requests for production, it did not state in its response or in a separate document that (1) the memorandum was being withheld, (2) the request to which the memorandum related, or (3) the privilege or privileges it was asserting with regard to the memorandum. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 193.3(a). Only after [Plaintiff] discovered the existence of the memorandum through his deposition of Gonzales and demanded [Defendant] produce the document did [Defendant] claim that the memorandum was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The City did not assert its privilege in accordance with rule 193.3(a).

Because the City failed to assert its privilege in accordance with rule 193.3(a), the trial court erred in denying [Plaintiff's] motion to compel production of the memorandum. Accordingly, we conditionally grant [Plaintiff's] petition for writ of mandamus and direct respondent (1) to withdraw her order denying [Plaintiff's] motion to compel and (2) to enter an order compelling production of the memorandum.

See In re Anderson, 163 S.W.3d 136, 142 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.). 37. Similar to In re Anderson, Relator failed to assert privilege in accordance with Rule 193.3(a) and only now seeks protection after Plaintiffs discovered the documents existed, more than seven months after the time to assert privilege passed. See id. As a result, Relator wrongfully withheld the documents named in its untimely privilege log and therefore waived its right to assert any privilege. Following In re Anderson, the Court properly granted Plaintiffs' motion and did not abuse discretion by ordering Relator to produce the requested documents. See id. *20

C. THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT WORK -PRODUCT

38. Relater waived its right to assert privilege by failing to comply with Rule 193.3(a). However, even if Relater followed the procedure to claim a privilege, the Court still did not err in granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel because the documents are not protected by work-product privilege. 39. Work-product privilege does not apply to the type of documents listed in Relator's log, including Gary Lambert's Report. Specifically, work-product doctrine "is not an umbrella for protecting materials gathered in the ordinary course of business." See In re Maher, 143 S.W.3d 907, 912 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) relying on Nat'/ Tank Co. v. Brotherlon, 851 S.W.2d 193, 204 (Tex. 1993)) (emphasis added). 40. A document is created in the ordinary course of business unless preparation for litigation is "the primary motivating purpose underlying the creation of the document. Id. A document is not prepared 'in anticipation of litigation' if it is in fact prepared for some other purpose." Id. 41. Lambert's employment as Manhattan I Vaughn Safety Manager and his responsibility to report onsite injuries pre-date the incident made basis of this lawsuit. Manhttan I Vaughn, Construction Manager, Thomas Kramer's affidavit, the very evidence relied on by Relater, clearly states conducting an *21 investigation and recording the information gathered was standard operating procedure for Manhattan I Vaughn:

As the Construction Manager for Manhattan IVaughn, it is my job to maintain oversight of the day-to-day activities of the Project including ... inspecting and overseeing the accumulation of information following any **emphasis added** accident at the Project. On the date of the accident, Gary Lambert's job responsibilities was (sic) to gather information and keep me informed of facts and observations gathered following an accident at the project and to maintain any paperwork associated with those responsibilities.

Relator's Appendix 6, Aff. of Thomas Kamer at 2. 42. Moreover, in Manhattan I Vaughn's Kyle Field Stadium Project Safety Program it plainly states it is the responsibility of the Project Safety Manager to "investigate all near misses, accidents, and property damage incidents, perform an investigation and submit a written report to the Project Manager and Project Superintendent." Relator's Appendix 16 at Exhibit J: Manhattan.000653. 43. The Project Safety Plan includes specific instructions for the types of information to be included in the written incident report, including the following:

I. Names and addresses of victims and witnesses;

11. Description of events leading up to the accidenU incident;

iii. Factors that may have contributed to the accidenUincident (root cause analysis); and

iv. Action taken to prevent this accidenUincident in the future.

Id. at Manhattan.000653- Manhattan.000660. 44. The primary motivating purpose of Lambert's investigation into Angel Garcia's death and subsequent report was to fulfill his obligations as Safety Manager as required by Relator's site safety plan. See id. As evidenced by the Kramer's affidavit and the privilege log itself, Lambert and Relater routinely conducted such investigations for other onsite injuries and safety incidents. See Relator's Appendix 6, Aff. of Thomas Kamer at 2; see a/so Relator's Appendix 4. 45. In the privilege log, Relater attempts to re-characterize the investigation and report regarding Angel Garcia as "notes" or a "summary of notes" in an attempt to veil its blatant concealment of requested documents. Relator's Appendix 4. However, Relator's own privilege log evidences a "report" was generated for all other instances of onsite injury. Id. *23 46. Mr. Lambert's investigation documents appear in Relator's privilege log as follows:

Relator's characterization of the post-incident investigation into Angel Garcia's death, referred to as "typed summary of notes":

Ila f t 1 ()orulll(·,\f ~anH.: On~in.11 llote Numbrl' - - MV LAMBERT.000001- 12/3/2013 Typed summary of Gary MV:LAMBERT.000012 Lambert notes

MV LAMBERT.000013- 1214/2013 Notes made by Gary Lambert MV=LAMBERT.000114 between December 3, 2013 through December 5. 2013

Relator's characterization of the post-incident investigation into all other onsite injuries referred to as "reports":

MV_LAMBERT.000116· 911212013 MfV Near Miss I Accident MV_LAMBERT.000132 Investigation Report regarding Britt-Rice emolovees MV_LAMBERT.000133· 9/30/2013 MIV Near Miss Repon Re: MV _LAMBERT.000139 Lindamood track ho• operator Charles Ste wan hit a buried 8" utility water line while eXCQVBtin". MV_LAMBERT.000140- l0/7/2013 MJV Accident Investigation MV_LAMBERT.000184 Report; Fran"i~co Dominguez

MV LAMBERT.000185- 10/15/2013 Injury Investigation Report; MV:::LAMBERT.000198 Ernesto Gonzalez

MV LAMBERT.000199- 1012212013 MIV Accident Investiaation MV).AMBERT.000216 Report; DeIT babel

MV_LAMBERT.000217- 11/8/2013 Employee Injury Report; Jose MV_LAMBERT.000239 Jimenez

MV_LAMBERT.000240· 11111/2013 Employee Jajury Report; Jose MV_LAMBBRT.000261 Urbano

MV_LAMBERT.000263· 11/13/2013 Incident lnves1iga1ion Report; MV_LAMBERT.000271 Derr Stell Erection

Id. *24 47. Relator has gone to great lengths to obstruct the discovery process and avoid production of the documents listed in its log. However, without any proof the documents were created for the sole purpose of litigation, Relator's claim for privilege must be denied. D. WHEN RELATOR'S COUNSEL "ARRIVED" ON-SITE IS IRRELEVANT 48. The date Relator's counsel arrived at the Kyle Field Renovation Project has no bearing on whether documents are privileged or not. Relator's counsel, particularly Michael Miller, is under the misconception that as soon as he arrived on-site, every investigation and document generated somehow becomes privileged for no other reason. 49. Miller has repeatedly stated he was not aware of any investigative report until after he was notified by Plaintiffs' counsel, not his own client. See Relator's Appendix 6. Moreover, it is clear multiple routine investigations were already underway by the time Miller showed up:

Q: After this happened, did you conduct an investigation -- did Lindamood to determine a root cause analysis as to what happened and why he went over?

A: I mean, we -

MR. MILLER: You can -- that's a yes or a no, because you're going to get into attorney-client communications.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q: And what was the -- what was the determination of what caused it, based on Lindamood?

A: I'm not sure. The study that our guy did, I think, went to -- 1don't know if it even ever got finished, but -

MR. MILLER: Let's do this. Because timing of it could be an issue, you can talk about what investigation vou did up until the time I arrived and was representing vou.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. MILLER: That's fair game.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. MILLER: You can tell him. But after that - MR. GIBSON: Because you -- well, just because you started representing them, that doesn't make their investigation privileged.

MR. MILLER: Well -

THE WITNESS: I investigated it myself... Relator's Appendix 16, Exhibit K: Dep. Jake Lindamood at pp. 65:23- 66:24. 50. Although Miller again misstates the legal effect of his representation on the ongoing investigation, it is clear the investigation began prior to Miller's *26 representation. Miller's arrival onsite had no influence on the Relator's choice to investigate the work-site fatality. 51. Furthermore, Relater provided no evidence whatsoever Lambert conducted his investigation at the request of counsel. Notably Lambert and Kramer's affidavits only state Relator's counsel "authorized" the ongoing investigation. See Relator's Appendix 6; see also Relator's Appendix 16 at Exhibit 5. Therefore, any reports, notes or statements generated during Lambert's investigation cannot be attorney work-product. E. THE DOCUMENTS Do NOT CONTAIN ATIORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS 52. Relater waived its right to assert attorney-client privilege by failing to comply with TEX. R. C1v. P. 193.3(a). However, even if Relater followed the procedure to timely claim a privilege, the documents are still not protected because they are not confidential communications intended to be disclosed solely to legal counsel when created. See TEX. R. Ev10. 503. 53. The "subject matter test" is applied when evaluating whether communications between an employee of a client and the client's attorney are privileged. See In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311, 316 (5th Cir. 2003). Under the subject matter test, communications between an employee and the client's attorney are only privileged when:

1. There is a communication between a representative of a client and the client's attorney,

2. The communication is made at the direction of his superiors, and

3. The subject matter of the communication is upon which the attorney's advice is sought by the corporation.

Id. (emphasis added). 54. The incident report and related documents do not contain "communications" between a company representative and an attorney. See Relator's Appendix 4. Plaintiffs do not seek to compel the production of any confidential emails, letters or exchanges between Relator's legal counsel and any other person or entity. See Relator's Appendix 16. 55. Furthermore, a document is not attorney-client communication simply because it is contained in an attorney's file. See In re Maher, 143 S.W.3d at 912. To be considered a confidential communication, the document must have been intended to be disclosed solely to legal counsel when it was created. See Avantel, 343 F.3d at 316, see also TEX. R. Ev10.§ 503. 56. Lambert's investigation documents were not commissioned by Relator's attorney, nor were they addressed to counsel or intended to be *28 used solely for legal representation when created. In fact, Relator's own safety plan states the incident report is to be prepared for review by the "Project Manager" and "Project Superintendent." Relator's Appendix 16 at Exhibit J: Manhattan.000653 -.000660. 57. Furthermore, the log itself supports a finding site incident reports were never intended to be confidential. Relater did not even allege attorney-client privilege for other investigations performed onsite and eventually produced the related reports on its own accord. See Relator's Appendix 4. However, Relater expects the Court to believe, unlike every other investigation, the documents referencing Angel Garcia's death were somehow intended to be confidential communications with an attorney. See id.

VII. CONCLUSION

58. Any right to assert privilege, was waived when Relater failed to state a privilege or make withholding statements prior to the date its discovery responses were due, more than one year ago. Lambert's investigation, report and other documents related to the incident were initiated and directed by company policies and procedures. The documents do not contain the advice of legal counsel nor were they addressed to, written or directed by legal *29 counsel. Therefore the documents are not privileged and must be produced without further delay.

VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

59. Plaintiffs ask the Court to DENY Manhattan I Vaughn, JVP's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and UPHOLD Respondents Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and for such other relief, both in law and equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE GIBSON LAW FIRM

o son State Bar No. 24000606 Casey L. Jordan State Bar No. 24090599 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2400 Hou~on , Texas77002 Ph: (713) 650-1010 Fax: (713) 650-1011

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS

I have reviewed the above Response to Manhattan I Vaughn , JVP's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. I certify every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the record .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify a true and correct copy of this document has been served on all counsel of record via first class regular mail or fax on May 19, 2015.

INDEX TO APPENDIX

True and correct copy of the following documents are attached as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.30) and 52.4(e).

Tab 1 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition;

Tab2 Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production to Defendant Manhattan I Vaughn, JVP;

Tab 3 Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Answers & Responses to Written Discovery; and

Tab4 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Answers & Responses to Written Discovery.

VERIFICATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HARRIS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Jason A. Gibson , who, after first being duly sworn by me, stated as follows:

"My name is Jason A. Gibson, I am over 21 years of age, of sound mind and am fully competent to make this Verification . The facts stated below are based on my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

I am an attorney of record for Real Parties in Interest, Josefina Garcia, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia; and Orbelinda Herrera, as Next Friend of Ashley Garcia and Bryan Garcia, Minors. I have reviewed the pleadings, discovery, correspondence and all other documents attached and referenced in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the pleadings and discovery filed in the underlying lawsuit. I have read Real Parties in Interest's Response to Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, all documents attached as the Record and included in the Appendix are true and c es of the original documents. "

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFO

''""''~(!;;,,, .,,,~',.~: JANA LYNN THOMPSON f;":~!I~"\ Notary Public, Sta te of Texas :.,1Xf..:N My Commission Expires "~~:f,:i~:~~~,~ August 28, 2018 Notary ublic in and for The State of Texas

TAB 1

Cause No. 2013-76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL § GARCIA (Deceased); and ORBELINDA § HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY § GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA (Minors) § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING, LP, § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING, GP, INC. § and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. § 80 111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE LARRY WEIMAN:

Plaintiffs JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL GARCIA (Deceased), and QRBELINDA HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA (Minors), file this Second Amended Petition complaining of Defendants MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, TEXAS CUTTING & CORING, LP and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. and would respectfully show the following:

I. DISCOVERY LEVEL

1. Plaintiffs request discovery be conducted under Level 3 in accordance with Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This case is not subjectto Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because the damages for which Plaintiff seek exceed $100,000.00.

II. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

2. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request Defendants disclose, within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the information and material described in Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs *2 specifically request the responding parties to produce responsive documents at the undersigned law offices within fifty (50) days of service of this request.

Ill. WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL CLAIMS

3. Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this action under the Texas Wrongful Death Act. TEX. C1v. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §71.002. Specifically, Plaintiff Josefina Garcia is the mother and living parent of the deceased, Angel Garcia. Plaintiffs Ashley Garcia and Bryan Garcia are the biological children of the deceased, Angel Garcia. 4. In addition, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Estate of Angel Garcia, deceased, under the Texas Survival Statute as statutory heirs to the estate. TEX. CIV. PRAc. &REM. CODE ANN. §71.021. Specifically, Josefina Garcia, Ashley Garcia and Bryan Garcia are the only living heirs of Angel Garcia, deceased. A legal representative has not been appointed and an administration of the estate is not pending and is not necessary. Moreover, a personal representative cannot or will not bring suit on behalf of the estate. 5. Plaintiffs are heirs entitled to the decedent's estate under the statutes of descent and distribution. TEX. PROB. CODE §38, §45. The estate of the deceased does not have two or more debts. All of the estate's debts have been paid. Furthermore, the heirs and family of the deceased have agreed on distribution of funds and assets received by the estate.

IV. PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, Josefina Garcia, is a resident of Irving, Dallas County, Texas. 7. Plaintiffs Orbelinda Herrera, Ashley Garcia and Bryan Garcia are all residents of Bonita Springs, Lee County, Florida. 8. Defendant Manhattan I Vaughn is a Domestic Joint Venture Partnership between Defendants Vaughn Construction and Manhattan Construction organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas. As a joint venture, Defendant may be served process by serving general partner: J. Thomas Vaughn, 10355 Westpark Drive, Houston, Texas 77042. 9. Defendant Texas Cutting &Coring, LP is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with a principal place of business in Round Rock, Texas. Defendant may be served process by serving its attorney of record: Michael A. Miller, 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950, Dallas, Texas 75219. 10. Defendant Lindamood Demolition, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal places of business in Irving, Texas. Defendant may be served process by serving its registered agent in Texas: Kayla Lindamood, 2002 S. Nursery, Irving, Texas 75060.

v. JURISDICTION

11. The court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they have either done business in Texas, committed a tort in Texas, and/or have had continuous contacts with Texas. In addition, the damages forwhich Plaintiff brings suit exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Court.

VI. VENUE

12. Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because Defendant J.T. Vaughn Construction, LLC.'s principal place of business is located in Houston, Harris County, Texas. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE§ 15.002(a)(3).

VII. FACTS

13. On December 3, 2013, 28 year-old Angel Garcia sustained fatal injuries from a four-story fall while working at Kyle Field in College Station, Texas. Specifically, Garcia's injuries were caused when a section of concrete dislodged, catapulting Garcia off the edge . of a fourth floor ramp where he was working. 14. Garcia was an employee of Lindamood Demolition, an entity assisting in the removal of concrete debris on the morning of December 3, 2013. The work was being done as a part of the renovation at Kyle Field, to expand seating from 82,600 to 102,500. At approximately 11 :30am, Garcia was operating a Caterpillar Skid Steer Lpader on the 4•h floor spiral ramp in the northeast portion of Kyle Field. Garcia was using the Caterpillar's grapple bucket to catch concrete debris from the overhead work. 15. Shortly before noon, a portion of concrete larger than the Caterpillar was able to control, broke free from a beam and fell into the grappling bucket. The weight caused the Caterpillar to lose control and topple forward and over the nearby edge of the work platform. The skid steer hit a concrete beam on the way down, causing it to flip repeatedly. As a result, Garcia was ejected and landed in a pile of rubble, back first, suffering massive trauma to his torso, face and head. Despite the severity of his injuries, Garcia remained conscious and in agonizing pain after the fall. *5 16. Garcia was transported by ambulance to St. Joseph Hospital emergency room in Bryan, Texas. Despite their efforts, 28 year-old Garcia succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead at St. Joseph Hospital. Garcia is survived by his mother, Josefina Garcia, and his two minor children, 7 year-old Ashley Garcia and 6 year-old Bryan Garcia.

VIII. NEGLIGENCE MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP and TEXAS CUTTING & CORING, LP

17. Defendants Manhattan I Vaughn and Texas Cutting & Coring, LP owed duties to Plaintiffs. Defendants breached their duties and were negligent in one or more of the following ways:

a. Failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace;

b. Failing to properly plan and engineer a safe demolition process;

c. Failing to adequately coordinate the work of contractors to ensure a safe work place;

d. Failing to adequately monitor and test the structural integrity and weight of the concrete/structure at issue, before and after the demolition process started;

e. Failing to test the structural integrity of the barrier on the 4th floor level where Garcia was working;

f. Falling to provide an adequate barrier for the work that was being done in the area where Garcia was working;

g. Failing to properly train and supervise workers, including Garcia;

h. Failing to provide adequate fall protection to Garcia;

I. Failing to abide by federal OSHA regulations;

j. Failing to provide or require the use of OSHA-mandated safety equipment and procedures on the job-site;

k. Failing to provide appropriate equipment for the job task assigned to Garcia;

I. Failing to prohibit the use of unsafe and inadequate equipment for the job task assigned to Garcia;

m. Failing to have adequate safety policies and procedures in place;

n. Failing to properly warn Garcia of the dangers associated with the work he was doing;

o. Failing to properly warn Garcia of the dangers of the work being performed by other contractors in the area; and

p. Failing to promulgate and enforce minimum safety standards or operational procedures.

18. Defendants' acts and omissions were a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries.

IX. GROSS NEGLIGENCE • LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION

19. Defendant Lindamood Demolition owed certain duties to Plaintiff. Defendant breached its continuous and non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace and was grossly negligent in one or more of the following ways:

a. Failing to provide Garcia with a safe workplace;

b. Failing to provide adequate safety equipment and training;

c. Failing to provide adequate construction equipment and training;

d. Failing to prevent Garcia from performing construction activities known to be .unsafe;

e. Failing to ensure Garcia was assisted by adequately trained and competent laborers;

f. Failing to modify or stop construction activities known to be unsafe;

g. Intentionally allowing Garcia to perform construction activities known to be unsafe and extremely dangerous.

h. Instructing workers, including Garcia, to perform work in violation of OSHA regulations; and

I. Allowing and instructing workers, including Garcia, to handle loads of concrete in .excess of the weight limitations of the equipment they were using.

20. Defendant's conduct, when viewed from the standpoint of the actors at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Furthermore, Defendant's conduct illustrates not only an attitude of conscious indifference for the rights, safety and welfare of others, but also shows Defendant's actual and subjective awareness of the dangers of such conduct. 21. Nevertheless, Defendant proceeded with a conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of others, including Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant is liable for exemplary damages to Plaintiffs under TEX. LAB. CODE §408.001.

x. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

22. Defendants are liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course and scope of their employment. Specifically, Defendants' employees, acting within the course and scope of their employment (and in furtherance of Defendant's business), had a general duty to exercise reasonable care in performing their work. Such employees, however, failed to exercise the requisite standard of care under the circumstances. As a result, Defendants are liable for the injuries suffered by Plaintiff.

XI. WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES

23. Plaintiffs request the following damages to be considered separately and individually for the purpose of determining the sum of money that will fairly and reasonably compensate the estate:

a. Plaintiffs' pecuniary loss from the death of Angel Garcia, including loss of care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel and contributions of pecuniary value that they would, in all reasonable probability, have received from Angel Garcia during his lifetime;

b. The mental anguish, ·grief and sorrow Plaintiffs suffered in the past and will continue to suffer in the future as a result of Angel Garcia's death;

c. Josefina Garcia's loss of society and damage to the mother-son relationship, including the right to love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, emotional support and happiness;

d. Ashley Garcia's loss of parental consortium and damage to the father- daughter relationship, including the right to love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, emotional support and happiness;

e. Bryan Garcia's loss of parental consortium and damage to the father- son relationship, including the rightto love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, emotional support and happiness; f. Plaintiffs' loss of monetary support due to the death of Angel Garcia they would, in all reasonable probability, have received during his lifetime;

g. Plaintiffs' loss of inheritance from Angel Garcia who, in reasonable probability, would have added to the estate had he died a natural death; and

h. Attorneys' fees and court costs.

XII. SURVIVAL DAMAGES TO THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA

24. Plaintiffs respectfully request the following damages to be considered separately and individually for the purpose of determining the sum of money that will fairly and reasonably compensate the estate:

a. The physical, conscious pain and suffering Angel Garcia suffered prior to his death as a result of her injuries sustained from Defendant;

b. The mental anguish Angel Garcia suffered prior to his death as a result of the injuries sustained;

c. The amount of reasonable medical expenses necessarily incurred as a result of Defendant's negligence;

d. The disfigurement Angel Garcia suffered prior to his death as a result of the injuries sustained;

e. The physical incapacity and impairment suffered by Angel Garcia until his death;

f. The funeral and burial expenses incurred as a result of her death;

g. The physical incapacity and impairment suffered by Angel Garcia until his death; and

h. The reasonable amount of past wages from the date of Garcia's death to present and the loss of future income reasonably expected during Garcia's lifetime.

XIII. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

25. Defendants' conduct, when viewed from the standpoint of the actors at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Furthermore, Defendants' conduct illustrates not only an attitude of conscious indifference for the rights, safety and welfare of others, but also shows Defendants' actual and subjective awareness of the dangers of such conduct. 26. Nevertheless, Defendants proceeded with a conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of others, including Plaintiffs. Therefore, Defendants are liable for exemplary/punitive damages ..

XIV. MAXIMUM MONETARY RELIEF

27. Pursuant to TEX. R. C1v. P. 47, Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 and demands a judgment for all other relief to which he is entitled. The maximum amount Plaintiffs will seek is $50,000,000.00.

xv. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

28. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 54.

XVI. JURY DEMAND

29. Plaintiffs DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY and tender the appropriate fee.

XVII. PRAYER

30. For the above reasons, Plaintiffs pray they have judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, together with interest on the judgment at the legal rate, pre-judgment interest, costs of court and for such other further relief, both in law and equity, to which the Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE: l31ascN LAW FIRM

Jason A. Gibson State Bar No. 24000606 Clifford D. Peel II State Bar No. 24068776 Casey L. Jordan State Bar No. 24090599 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2050 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph: (713) 650-1010 Fax: (713) 650-1011

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify a copy of this document was served to all counsel of record by first class regular mail and/or fax on December 29, 2014.

Jason A. Gibson Envelope Details Page 1 of2 Print this page

Case # 201376550 - GARCIA, JOSEFINA (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HE v J T VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION INC (DBA VAUGHC Case Information Location Harris County - 80th Civil District Court Date Filed 12/29/2014 03:09:02 PM Case Number 201376550 GARCIA, JOSEFINA (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HE v J T Case Description VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION INC (DBA VAUGH C Assigned to Judge Attorney Jason Gibson Firm Name Gibson Law Firm Filed By Jason Gibson Filer Type Attorney Fees Convenience Fee $0.06 Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00 Total Court Service Fees $2.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00 Total Service Tax Fees $0.00 Total Provider Service Fees $0.00 Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00 Grand Total $2.06 Payment Account Name Amex Transaction Amount $2.06 Transaction Response Approved Transaction ID 5945401 Order# 003605052-0 ·---·---- ··----·· - - -

No Fee Documents Not Answers Filing Type EFileAndServe Filing Code No Fee Documents Not Answers Filing Description Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition Reference Number GARCIA Comments

https ://efile. txcourts.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=63 87b4a9- fl 2a-4 72d-bf9b-... 12/2912014 Envelope Details Page 2 of2

Please find attached for filing Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition. Thanks! Status Accepted Accepted Date 2014-12-29 21:52:34 UTC Fees Court Fee $0.00 Service Fee $0.00 Documents Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition- Lead Document [Orir,;inal] [Transmitted] GARCIA.pdf

eService Details Name/Email Firm Service Type Status Served Date/Time Opened Clark S Butler The Miller Law 12/29/2014 EServe Sent Yes cbutler@tmlfpc.com Firm 03:15:01 PM J.J. Knauff The Miller Law EServe Sent Yes Not Opened jknauff@tmlfpc.com Firm JayK Webb The Miller Law 12/29/2014 EServe Sent Yes kwebb@tmlfpc.com Firm 03:13:44PM Johnnie Dillard The Miller Law EServe Sent Yes Not Opened jdillard@tmlfpc.com Firm Michael A. Miller The Miller Law EServe Sent Yes Not Opened mmiller@tmlfpc.com Firm Pamela C Nelson The Miller Law EServe Sent Yes Not Opened pnelson@tmlfpc.com Firm Debra Scott The Miller Law 12/29/2014 EServe Sent Yes dscott@tmlfpc.com Firm 03:20:30PM Robyn Cruze The Miller Law 12/29/2014 EServe Sent Yes rcruze@tmlfpc.com Firm 03:41:21 PM Karen Morgan The Miller Law EServe Sent Yes Not Opened kmorgan@tmlfpc.com Firm JAG E-File 12/29/2014 efile@jag- EServe Sent Yes 03:52:47 PM lawfirm.com

https://efile.txcourts.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=6387b4a9-fl 2a-4 72d-bf9b-... 12/2912014

G THE GIBSON LAW FIRM

FAX COVER SHEET

TO: Michael A. Miller FAX: (469) 916-2555 The Miller Law Firm

DATE: December 29, 2014 FROM: Jason A. Gibson/jt WE ARE SENDING (12) PAGES (including this page).

RE: Cause No. 2013-76550; Josefina Garcia, Individually, et al v. J. T. Vaughn Construction, LLC dlbla Vaughn Construction, et al; In the 801h Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

MESSAGE: Please see attached:

1) Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition

If you do not receive the entire FAX, or are not receiving it clearly, please call us at (713) 650-1010. THIS FAX IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. THIS INFORMATION IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.

THE LYRIC CENTRE, 440 LOUISIANA, SUITE 2400, HOUSTON, TX 7 7 0 0 2 PH: 1713) 6SCJ·1Cl1CJ FAX: (713) 6SCl•1011 TOLL FREE: 1·S66-.JAGFIRM (524-3476) WWW• .JAG·LAWFI RM.C Cl M

••••••••••••••• -COMM. JOURNAL- ••••••••••••••••••• DATE DEC-29-2014 ••••• TIME 16:30 ••••••••

MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=DEC-29 16:09 END=DEC-29 16:30 FILE N0.=446 STN COMM. STATION NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS/TELEPHONE NO. PAGES DURATION NO. 001 407 1114699162555 000/012 00:03:33

-THE GIBSON LAW FIRM ••••• e-STUDI0190F ••••••••••••••••• -

GI THE GIBSON LAW F'IRM

FAX COVER SHEET

TO: Michael A. Miller FAX: (469) 916-2555 The Miller Law Firm

DATE: December29,2014

FROM: Jason A. Gibsonljt

WE ARE SENDING (12) PAGES (Including this page).

RE: Couse No. 2013·76550; Josefina Garcia, lndMdua/ly, et al v. J. T. Vaughn Construction, U.C dlbla Voughn Construction, et al,· In the so"' Judicial Dlstrlct Court, Harris County, Texas ·

MESSAGE: Please see attaclied:

1) Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition

If you do not receive the entire FAX, or are not receiving it clearly, please call us at (713) 650-1010. nus FAX IS INTENDl!.D ONLY FOR USE OF THE ADDRESSEE:. THIS INFORrAA.TlON IS PRNIL..!.Gl!D, CONFIDENT!Al.AND EXEMPT FROM AGCEIVEOTHIS COMMUNICATION lN EAROFI:, PLEAS~ NOTIFY US IMMEOIATGLY ANI) IUTUAN TO TH! ABOW ADDRESS avTHE U.S. PO$TAl.$iRV!Cli,

- - - -TH~ - LYRIC --- - - · -··-···---·--·······----- ·-·-· ·--..· - - - - - - CE:NTRE., 440 L.a ... ra1ANA, SUITI!: 24CIO, HOUSTON, IX ??002 PH: 171 3) 6!!D• 101 0 rAlU (7 1 3) 6 liQ•1 Cl\ 1 TQL.\. F'AEEl 1 •B66•JAGF"I RM l524•:3475) WWW,JAfi•l.AWFIRM,COM

Jana Thompson

From: Jana Thompson Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:28 PM To: jdillard@tmlfpc.com Subject: E-Filed Docs - Cause No. 2013-76550 Attachments: Plaintiffs' 2nd Amended Petition.pdf

Good afternoon. Please see attached for the above referenced case. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. I've attempted to fax, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to be going through.

Thanks,

CiilBl!ICN I.AW Fl~M

Jana L. Thompson The Gibson Law Firm 440 Louisiana, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713.650.1010 Fax: 713.650.1011 www.iag-lawfirm.com

TAB2

Cause No. 2013-76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Representative of the ESTATE § OF ANGEL GARCIA, and § ORBELINDA HERRERA, as Next § Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and BRIAN § GARCIA, Minors § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, § MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION § CO., INC., MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, § TEXAS CURB CUT, INC., TEXAS § CUTTING & CORING GROUP, INC. § and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. § 801h JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF JOSEFINA GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN. JVP

TO: Defendant, MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, by and through its attorney of record, Michael A. Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Turtle Creek Centre, 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950, Dallas, Texas 75219.

Plaintiff, Josefina Garcia, Individually and as Representative of the estate of Angel Garcia, serves her First Request for Production to Defendant Manhattan /Vaughn, JVP pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE GIBSON LAW FIRM

so . 1 son Stat Bar No. 24000606 Clifford D. Peel II State Bar No. 24068776 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph: (713) 650-1010 Fax: (713) 650-1011

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify a copy of this document was served to all counsel of record by first class regular mail andfor fax on March 11, 2014.

DEFINITIONS

"Manhattan I Vaughn" refers to Manhattan I Vaughn, JVP.

"Lindamood" refers to Lindamood Demolition, Inc.

"Kyle Field renovation project" refers to the construction and demolition project during which the subject incident took place.

"Northeast pedestrian ramp" refers to the structure location of the subject incident.

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

PLEASE PRODUCE THE FOLLOWING:

1. All records documenting Angel Garcia's employment with Manhattan I Vaughn, including but not limited to personnel files, work history, time logs, payment records and training logs.

2. All contracts or other written agreements entered between Manhattan I Vaughn, Texas A & M or any defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

3. All correspondence between Manhattan I Vaughn, Texas A &Mor any other entity or defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to correspondence related to contracts or agreements for the performance of activities related to construction, construction management, accident prevention or safety at the work site.

4. All documents related to, documenting or describing the scope of work to be performed by Manhattan I Vaughn for the Kyle Field renovation project.

5. All documents related to or discussing demolition work, purchase of materials, supplies, provision of equipment, provision of labor, safety, insurance and workers' compensation, as it applies to any defendant in this case.

6. All documents and correspondence related to the progress of the Kyle Field renovation project between or among the parties, including Manhattan I Vaughn, Lindamood, or any other party with responsibilities on the Kyle Field renovation project site.

7. All notes and documents in possession of Manhattan I Vaughn regarding inspections performed by OSHA on the Kyle Field renovation project.

8. All documents related to inspections done on the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to the area where Angel Garcia was working and killed.

9. All minutes of meetings (or other similar document) at which planning, risk management, engineering, demolition or safety was discussed.

10. All recordings or videos of the work being performed on the Kyle Field renovation project, including audio or video footage of the incident in question.

11. All documents identifying safety issues or concerns as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation, including but not limited to the demolition process and the work being performed by Angel Garcia and his employer.

12. All documents mentioning actions taken by defendants to correct any safety issues that were identified, as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation project.

13. All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to blue prints, specifications, structural general notes and structural plan sheets, defining demolition work to be performed on the existing northeast pedestrian ramp.

14. All documents including specifications, general conditions and supplemental conditions generated by any party or other entity, describing the scope of work and/or services (specifically including safety and demolition) to be done on the Kyle Field renovation project.

15. All correspondence between Manhattan I Vaughn and any other entity involved with the Kyle Field renovation project that mentions job progress, scheduling, safety, hazard identification or job-site hazards.

16. All documents related to the Kyle Field renovation project, which mention the methods and/or schedule of performance of demolition work to be performed by Manhattan I and its employees.

17. All minutes of Pre-Construction meetings related to Kyle Field renovation project.

18. All contracts issued by Manhattan I Vaughn related to the structural demolition scope of work being performed on the northeast pedestrian ramp where the subject incident occurred on 12/3/2013.

19. All correspondence and emails between Manhattan I Vaughn and Lindamood related to demolition activities and the Kyle Field renovation project.

20. All documents reflecting responsibilities of Manhattan I Vaughn employees related to performance or oversight of demolition activities.

21. All documents which show engineering surveys performed by any party or entity, related to the demolition of structural concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.BSO(a).

22. All documentation and correspondence discussing engineering surveys performed by any party or entity, related to the demolition of structural concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.850(a).

23. All documents reflecting qualifications and training of persons who performed engineering surveys related to the demolition of structural concrete on the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.BSO(a).

24. All documents reflecting qualifications and training of persons who operated equipment (machinery) for Manhattan I Vaughn such as the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time of his death.

25. All documents, details or sketches addressing the specific dimensions and scope of the demolition of the concrete structure being worked on by Angel Garcia immediately prior to the subject collapse that led to Mr. Garcia's fall.

26. All documents reflecting observations by any party or person regarding the nature of spalling (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition activities prior to the time of the subject incident.

27. All documents showing inspections and inspection results of the demolition activities being performed on the northeast spiral, pedestrian ramp.

28. All Job Hazard Analyses, Job Safety Analyses (JHA, JSA or similar such formal process) done for the work activities of the demolition of structural concrete of the northeast pedestrian ramp, including the specific work being done by Angel Garcia.

29. All documents and plans for temporary shoring to be utilized during the demolition work of structural concrete of the northeast pedestrian ramp, at the location of the subject incident.

30. All correspondence, documents and emails between Manhattan I Vaughn (or any other party or entity) and Lindamood, reflecting the designation of a Competent Person proposed by Lindamood for the Kyle Field renovation project, as required by OSHA regulations 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2).

31. All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safety- related rules and requirements for all work to be performed within the scope of the Kyle Field renovation project.

32. All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safety- related rules, etc. related to the Kyle Field renovation project, created or adopted by Manhattan I Vaughn prior to the incident which were required by the authority of Manhattan I Vaughn to be utilized by subcontractors or others on the Kyle Field renovation project.

33. All published requirements of any federal, state or local agency or any related standard of any national consensus standard promulgating organization, addressing requirements or recommendations for accident prevention and for the protection of employees or others on site with which Manhattan I Vaughn acknowledges they or others under the authority of Manhattan I Vaughn were to comply or operate on the Kyle Field renovation project on the date of the incident.

34. All documents reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan I Vaughn or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the incident in question.

35. All documents reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan I Vaughn or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the events leading up to the subject incident, or the incident itself.

36. All initial-employment safety orientation, any specific safety management or accident prevention training or seminars provided by Manhattan I Vaughn or by any party, to employees of any contractor or subcontractor working on the Kyle Field renovation project.

37. All periodic reports of the progress of work performed on the Kyle Field renovation project.

38. All reports of accidents, on the job injuries or accident statistics related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

39. All records or minutes of periodic safety "toolbox" or "tailgate" meetings performed on the job site, dating from the commencement of demolition activities through 12131/2013, with employees and/or with other contractors or subcontractors on the Kyle Field renovation project, including records of the topics discussed and attendance lists.

40. All reports of the incident made by any party or person.

41. All schedules related to the Kyle Field renovation project, listing milestone dates, depicting the proposed progress of construction, schedules reflecting proposed progress for demolition activities on the subject pedestrian ramp involved in the subject incident.

42. All job-site safety inspection reports (dated from the start of construction of the Kyle Field renovation project through12/31/2013).

43. All checklists utilized on the Kyle Field renovation project to assist in performance of job-site safety inspection efforts, and specifically, all such checklists or documents which relate to or mention the subject of demolition, structural integrity or safety.

44. All written procedures or requirements for the pre-qualification and selection of contractors or subcontractors for the Kyle Field renovation project.

45. All records of formal training given to any worker or employee (assigned to the Kyle Field renovation project prior to the subject incident), related to the methods and techniques of demolition activities, in general, and specifically, demolition of concrete structures.

46. All reports generated as a result of the subject incident.

47. All OSHA reports or documents, including correspondence, related to the subject incident.

48. All documents related to any investigation conducted as a result of the incident in question.

49. Color copies of all photographs and videos taken of the scene of the subject incident, before and after the incident.

50. All pictures and videos generated as a result of any investigation conducted after the incident in question.

51. All videos and footage taken by the "construction cams" of the Kyle Field renovation project during the period of 11/1/2013 through 12/31/2013.

52. All documents of the overall site plan reflecting the scope and layout of the Kyle Field renovation project.

53. All documents reflecting the name of each company or contractor present at the Kyle Field work site on the day Angel Garcia was killed.

54. All documents reflecting the names of every worker at the Kyle Field work site on the day Angel Garcia was killed.

55. All specifications, limitations, maximum weight loads or warnings provided with, or attached to, the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

56. The owner's and/or operator's manual for the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

57. All structural integrity testing done on the concrete structure in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the day of the incident in question. This includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

58. All testing, engineering or otherwise, done on the concrete structure in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the day of the incident in question. This includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

59. All work plans for the specific work Angel Garcia was performing when he was killed.

60. All correspondence between defendants in this case and any insurance company, regarding coverage for personal injury or death claims, before the incident in question.

61. All correspondence between defendants in this case and any insurance company, regarding coverage for personal injury or death claims, after the incident in question.

62. All correspondence between defendants in this case regarding the incident in question.

63. All insurance reports regarding the incident in question.

64. All documents relied up or reviewed by any person, entity or insurer, to generate a report regarding the incident in question.

65. All permits obtained for the demolition work being performed as a part of the Kyle Field renovation project.

66. All waivers of conflict signed, allowing representation of all Defendants by one law firm.

TAB3

./ ' J

Cause No. 2013-76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL § GARCIA (Deceased); and ORBELINDA § HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY § GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA (Minors) § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; § MANHAITAN CONSTRUCTION § CO., INC.; MANHATTAN IVAUGHN, JVP; § TEXAS CUITING & CORING LP; § TEXAS CUITING & CORING GP, INC.; § and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. § 80th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS & RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY

TO THE HONORABLE LARRY WEIMAN:

Plaintiffs, JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL GARCIA; and ORBELINDA HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA, Minors (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), file this Second Motion to Compel Defendants J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; MANHAITAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; MANHATTAN IVAUGHN, JVP; TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP; TEXAS CUTTING & CORING GP, INC.; and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'s (hereinafter "Defendants") Answers & Responses to Written Discovery and would respectfully show:

I. FACTS

1. Since filing Plaintiffs' first Motion to Compel Defendants' Responses to Requests for Disclosure, Defendants' have also failed to fully respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production that were due on April 30, 2014 at 5:00pm. Despite the

/) \ I

allowance of additional time, Defendants yet again disregarded a discovery deadline and failed to respond in the following ways:

A. J.T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, d/b/a Vaughn Construction: Due Date: 4130114 @ 5:00pm Outstanding Responses: 1. All BATES labels referencing documents responsive to each request for production.

2. RFP No. 13 - Blueprints and plans of Kyle Field.

3. RFP No. 25 - Documents, details and sketches that address specific dimensions and scope of demolition of concrete structure being worked on immediately prior to subject collapse.

4. RFP No. 26 - Documents reflecting observations by any party or person regarding the nature of spelling (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition activities prior to the time of the subject incident.

5. RFP No. 29 - Documents and plans for temporary shoring to be utilized during the demolition work of structural concrete of the NE pedestrian ramp, at the locations of the subject incident.

6. RFP No. 34 - All documents reflecting statements by employees of MVJV or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the incident in question.

B: Manhattan Construction Co., Inc.: Due Date: 4130114 @ 5:00pm Outstanding Responses: 1. All BATES labels referencing documents responsive to each request for production.

2. RFP No. 13 - Blueprints and plans of Kyle Field.

3. RFP No. 18 - All contracts issued by Manhattan Construction related to structural demolition performed on northeast pedestrian ramp.

4. RFP Nos. 21& 22 - Engineering surveys related to the demolition of structural concrete for Kyle Field. This is required by OSHA Standard 1926.850(a). Defendant's response states it has "none."

:··-·\ : ) " ,i

5. RFP No. 40 - Missing incident reports referenced in Defendant's production set: Safety Report of Injury, Accident Investigation, and DWC Form-1 as referenced in MANHATTAN000667 Formal Incident Report as referenced in MANHATTAN000674

C: ManhattanjVaughn,JVP: Due Date: 4130114@5:00pm Outstanding Responses: 1. All BATES labels referencing documents responsive to each request for production.

2. RFP No. 13 - All documents and plans of Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to blue prints, specifications, and structural plan sheets, defining demolition work to be performed on the existing northeast pedestrian ramp as referenced in MVJV000458-459.

3. RFP No. 13 - Project specifications for demolition work as referenced in MVJV000442-000443.

4. RFP No. 16 - Actual project schedule for demolition activities. Defendant only provided draft schedule at MVJV000544-604.

5. RFP Nos. 21& 22 - Engineering surveys related to the demolition of structural concrete for Kyle Field. This is required by OSHA Standard 1926.850(a). Defendant's response states it has "none."

6. RFP No. 25 - All documents, details or sketches addressing specific dimensions and scope of demolition. Project documents require that Building Information Modeling (BIM) models, images and data be used for construction. See MVJV000176-178.

7. ROG No. 19 - Defendant failed to identify all permits obtained for the demolition work performed at Kyle Field.

'·J'

D: Texas Cutting & Coring LP: Due Date: 4!30!14@5:00pm Outstanding Responses: 1. All written answers and responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production without objections. This includes all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests for production. To date, Defendant has only produced responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Disclosure.

E: Lindamood Demolition, Inc.: Due Date: 4130114 @5:00pm Outstanding Responses: 1. ROG No. 7 - Defendant did not provide any of the requested information regarding past OSHA violations.

2. ROG No. 18 - Defendant failed to identify all remedial measures it took after the subject incident.

3. ROG No. 19 - Defendant failed to identify all permits obtained for the demolition work performed at Kyle Field. .

4. ROG No. 20 - Defendant failed to identigy ariy workers employed by Defendant who were injuried on Kyle Field project since the date of the subject incident.

5. @LMD000286 - Employer's First Report of Injury: states that the "List of witnesses" was attached. This list was not included in Defendant's production set.

6. @LMD000332 - Contract documents were not included with Defendant's subcontract with Defendant Manhattan Vaughn, JV.

7. @LMD000758 - The written statement of Daniel Burge is incomplete.

8. RFP Nos. 21-23 - Engineering surveys and information related to personnel who conducted those surveys. This is required by OSHA Standard 1926.850(a). Defendant's response states "no responsive documents have been identified at this

time."

9. RFP No. 40 - Missing incident reports referenced in Defendant's production set: Summary Report referenced LMD000480; Investigation Report referenced LMD000482; Safety Violation Report referenced LMD000498

II. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

2. The Court may compel a party to provide answers and responses to properly served discovery requests. 1 To date, all Defendants have failed to timely respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Failure to timely plead objections from discovery will result in waiver of any object or claimed privilege.2 Therefore, Defendants must be compelled to provide these responses.

Ill. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

3. Plaintiffs ask the Court to GRANT Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Defendants', J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; MANHATIAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; MANHATTANIVAUGHN, JVP; TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP; TEXAS CUTTING & CORING GP, INC.; and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'s Answers & Responses to Plaintiffs' Written Discovery. I Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b). 2 See Jn re Kevin Gore, 251S.W.3d696, 700 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding).

/~\

' )

Respectfully Submitted,

THE GIBSON LAW FIRM

Ja n . Gibson Sta ar No. 24000606 Clifford D. Peel II State Bar No. 24068776 Jonathan D. Sneed State Bar No. 24085594 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph: (713) 650-1010 Fax: (713) 650-1011

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify a copy of this document was served to all counsel of record by first class regular mail and/or fax on June 12, 2014.

/ ) i\ ". )

Cause No. 2013-76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Heir to the Estate of ANGEL § GARCIA (Deceased); and ORBELINDA § HERRERA, as Next Friend of ASHLEY § GARCIA and BRYAN GARCIA (Minors) § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; § MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION § CO., INC.; MANHATTAN IVAUGHN, JVP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING GP, INC.; § and LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. § SO'h JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS & RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY

The Court heard Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Defendants', J.T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, d/b/a Vaughn Construction; Manhattan Construction Co., Inc.; Manhattan !Vaughn, JVP; Texas Cutting & Coring LP; Texas Cutting & Coring GP, Inc.; and Lindamood Demolition, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"), Answers & Responses to Written Discovery. After reviewing the pleadings, the evidence and arguments by counsel, if any, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

The Court orders Defendants to submit answers and responses to Plaintiffs' written discovery without objections on or before , 2014.

SIGNED ON _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2014.

HON. LARRY WEIMAN

TAB4

Chris oat\ f), l7P-2l~4Ai: 'J"m\12014632 By; BRADLEY DARNELL

CAUSE NO. 2013 76550

§ JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually and, IN THE DISTRICT COURT, as Heir to the ESTATE OF ANGEL § § GARCIA (Deceased); and ORBELINDA § HERRERA, as Next Fried of ASHLEY GARCIA and BRIAN GARCIA § (Minors), § § Plain tiffs, § § ~ § § SOTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, § MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., § INC., MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING, LP, § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING GP, § INC., and LINDAMOOD § DEMOLITION, INC., § § Defendants § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE WEIMAN:

COMES NOW J. T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, dlb/a Vaughn Construction, Manhattan Construction Co., Inc., Manhattan I Vaughn, Texas Cutting & Coring, LP, and Lindamood Demolition, Inc., (collectively "Defendants" herein) in the above-styled and numbered cause, and file this, their Response to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Answers and Responses to Written Discovery. In support of same, Defendant would respectfully show the Court the following: Defendants' Response to Plaintiff:!!' Second Motion to Compel Page 1

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND/UNDISPUTED FACTS

1.1 Plaintiffs originally filed suit in this matter on December 23, 2013 against J.T. Vaughn

Construction, LLC, d/b/a Vaughn Construction, Manhattan Construction Co., Inc., Manhattan I Vaughn, Texas Curb Cut, Inc., Texas Cutting & Coring Group, Inc., and Lindamood Demolition,

Inc. Accompanying the Original Petition were discovery requests directed to each Defendant, including requests for disclosure, numerous requests for production, and extensive interrogatories. 1.2 On April 17, 20 I 4, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Petition. Texas Curb Cut, Inc. and Texas Cutting & Coring Group, Inc. were non-suited by virtue of not being listed as parties to the litigation. In their place were included Texas Cutting & Coring, LP and Texas Cutting & Coring GP, Inc. As of this writing, Texas Cutting & Coring GP, Inc. has not been served with citation. 1.3 On May 2, 2014, during a hearing on Plaintiffs' first Motion to Compel, the trial court made it abundantly clear that discovery disputes, should they arise, should first be addressed by phone calls between the counsel to try and work out matters before seeking court relief. 1.4 The Defendants provided an example of how to resolve discovery problems without first resorting to motions and hearing prior to the deposition of Orbelinda Herrera on June 13, 2014. Defendant's counsel pointed out that Plaintiffs' counsel sent out interrogatory responses that were not verified or signed by Plaintiffs' counsel and that he wanted to bring that to their attention instead of filing a motion to compel. See Exhibit "A," a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the deposition of Orbelinda Herrera, page 4, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGE2 1.5 Plaintiffs have considerably complicated responding to their Motion to Compel by failing to attach the discovery responses they are complaining of to their Motion. There are four putative plaintiffs in this matter (Josefina Garcia, Individually, Josephina Garcia as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia, Orbelinda Herrera as Next Friend of Ashley Garcia, and Orbelinda Herrera as Next Friend of Bryan Garcia}, most or all of which have served written discovery on one or more defendants. Further, the Plaintiffs make inaccurate statements regarding the alleged tardiness of Defendants' Responses. This is not the first time that Plaintiffs have had trouble understanding the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to service of documents, as discussed in Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, which is incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein.

II.

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENT

2.1 Defendant first notes that Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Answers and Responses to Written Discovery does not contain a certificate of conference as required by Rule 3.3.6 of the Rules of The Civil Trial Division of the Harris County District Court Rules. See HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURTS, CIVIL TRIAL DIV. R. 3.3.6. The Local Rules do not suggest a remedy for this failure to follow the Local Rules, but the omission is indicative of the lack of communication from Plaintiffs regarding discovery issues. 2.2 Defendants next point out that Plaintiffs' Motion does not indicate any attempts to reconcile the discovery dispute prior to filing the Motion and setting it for hearing. As will be discussed below, it is quite possible that many of these issues could have been cleared up without the necessity of taking up the Court's time. DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGE3 2.3 While the defendants involved in this Motion to Compel have common representation, each has followed the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in that each has only produced documents over which it has control. This extends to Vaughn and Manhattan who, while also general partners in Manhattan I Vaughn, are subcontractors with limited scopes of work. Vaughn's scope of work concerns concrete work while Manhattan's scope of work is general labor. To prevent confusion and useless redundancy, Manhattan and Vaughn have not produced documents outside of their scope of subcontracting work, and Manhattan I Vaughn has answered as the separate entity it is.

III.

Vaughn 3.0 Plaintiffs have segregated their complaints by party, and Defendants will organize their Response in a similar fashion. The first issues to be addressed are the incorrect assertions regarding when the discovery responses were due. For example, by virtue of a Rule 11 agreement, defendant J.T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, d/b/a Vaughn Construction (hereinafter "Vaughn") had until April 30, 2014 to serve its responses to Plaintiff Josephina Garcia's (acting in both capacities) requests for production. See Exhibit "B," a true and correct copy of the Rule 11 Agreement setting that deadline, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. Notably, no mention is made that service be made by 5:00 p.m., nor does the agreement specify a method of service. As reflected in the attached Exhibit "C," Vaughn's objections and responses were served April 30, 2014 and were served by certified mail, return receipt requested. See Exhibit "C," a true and correct copy of Vaughn's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Josefina Garcia's First Request for Production, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. Thus, under Texas law, the document

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE4

was served in conformity with the Rule 11 agreement. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 2la(b)(l), ("Service by mail .... shall be complete upon deposit of the document, post-paid and properly addressed, in the mail. ..."), (c) ("A certificate by .... an attorney of record .... showing service of a notice shall be prima facie evidence of the fact of service."). Plaintiffs' assertion in this regard is without merit and could have been resolved with a phone call. 3.1 Plaintiffs next complain Vaughn did not provide BAIBS ranges referencing documents responsive to each request for production. However, there is no requirement in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to produce documents in such a manner if the documents are produced as they are kept in the usual course of business. See TEX. R. C!V. P. 196.3(c). The Defendants have consistently produced documents in this matter as they were kept by the individual defendants in the usual course of business. Plaintiffs' complain in this regard is without merit. This is another example of a dispute that could have been cured with a phone call prior to expending the effort to draft and file a motion to compel. 3.2 Plaintiffs next assert Vaughn failed to provide "Blueprints and plans of Kyle Field." Plaintiffs fail to mention the full scope of this request for production. The actual request was for "All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to blue prints, specifications, structural general notes and structural plan sheets, defining demolition work to be performed on the existing northeast pedestrian ramp." This poorly written request seems to ask for all design documents involved in the Kyle Field Renovation Project, both in construction and demolition. The project includes complete demolition of the west stands and construction of new suites, stands, and a new press area. It also included demolition of G. Rolle White Coliseum and the lower seating bowl on the east side of the stadium. The bowl would be replaced with new seats and suites. Additionally, a new south end set of stands to seat up to DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGES 19,000 people, a locker room, and other facilities is to be constructed. Other construction involving the north end includes adding of seating. Finally, the playing field has been lowered seven (7) feet and moved eighteen (18) feet to the south. Defendants objected to the overbreadth of the request, the vagueness of the request, the request constituting an impermissible fishing expedition, and the nature of the request seeking irrelevant information. Nonetheless, Vaughn directed Plaintiffs to documents already produced. Indeed, responsive documents have been produced in this matter, although by Manhattan I Vaughn, not Vaughn. 3.3 Plaintiffs next assert Vaughn failed to provide documents relating to the scope of demolition of "concrete structure being worked on immediately prior to subject collapse." Again, Plaintiffs' Motion does not reflect the scope of the actual request made. Request For Production 25 requests "All documents, details, or sketches addressing the specific dimensions and scope of the demolition of the concrete structure being worked on by Angel Garcia immediately prior to the subject collapse that led to Mr. Garcia's fall." At the time of the subject incident, Mr. Garcia was working on a multi-story pedestrian ramp. Further, no collapse occurred that led to Mr. Garcia's fall. Mr. Garcia was killed when the skid-steer he was operating fell off the ramp and landed on the ground. Defendant lodged numerous objections to the request. Finally, Defendant stated that responsive documents, if any, would be produced. In fact, responsive documents have been produced in this matter. 3.4 Plaintiffs next assert Vaughn failed to provide documents reflecting "observations by any party or person regarding the nature of spalling (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition activities prior to the time of the subject incident. This is another request unlimited in time and scope. Defendant also stated that DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGE6 responsive documents, if any, would be produced. To date, Defendant has found no discoverable documents responsive to this request. 3.5 Plaintiffs next assert Vaughn failed to provide documents and plans "for temporary shoring to be utilized during the demolition work of structural concrete of the NE pedestrian ram, at the locations [sic] of the subject incident. This is yet another request unlimited in time and scope. It also assumes that temporary shoring was used and/or needed for the demolition work. Again, Defendant stated it would produce responsive documents, if any. Subsequently, Defendant has produced documents responsive to this request. 3.6 Plaintiffs next assert Vaughn failed to provide "all documents reflecting statements by employees of MVJV or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the incident in question. Defendant objected to this request as it was duplicative of Plaintiffs previously-served Requests for Disclosure, which were included in Plaintiffs' Original Petition, which rendered this request for production improper discovery. Should Plaintiffs wish to see statements, they may find them in Defendants' responses to the various Requests for Disclosure in this matter.

IV.

Manhattan 4.0 As with Vaughn, Plaintiffs assert that Manhattan Construction Company (hereinafter "Manhattan") failed to file its discovery responses on time. These discovery requests were also the subject of the aforementioned Rule 11 agreement, as discussed earlier in the response. See Exhibit "D," a true and correct copy of Manhattan's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Josefina Garcia's First Request for Production, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE7

if set forth verbatim herein. Exhibit "D" demonstrates it was served in conformity the Rule 11 agreement and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4.1 Also as with Vaughn, Plaintiffs first assert that Manhattan Construction Company (hereinafter "Manhattan") failed to provide BATES ranges for the documents responsive to each request for production. As noted above, the Rules permit the production of documents in the manner in which they were kept. See TEX. R. C1v. P. 196.3(c). This assertion is without merit and its consideration does not promote judicial economy, to put it mildly. 4.2 Plaintiffs repeat another complaint addressed above when they assert that Manhattan did not produce "blueprints and plans of Kyle Field." Again, the actual request for production is much broader than Plaintiff's would have the Court believe. The actual request for production is: "All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to blue prints, specification, structural general notes and structural plan sheets, defining demolition work to be performed on the existing northeast pedestrian ramp." As discussed above, this request is overly broad in time and scope, and is objectionable on a variety of levels. Defendant has lodged several objections to this request. Nonetheless, Defendant did not fail to respond; it directed Plaintiff to documents that have been produced elsewhere in discovery. Numerous sets of design plans and drawings have already been produced in this matter, most particularly by Manhattan I Vaughn. 4.3 Plaintiffs contend Manhattan did not provide all "contracts issued by Manhattan Construction related to structural demolition performed on the northeast pedestrian ramp." Manhattan did not issue any contracts related to structural demolition, as it was not the construction manager-at-risk for this project. Manhattan I Vaughn was the construction manager at-risk for this project. Therefore, Manhattan would not have any responsive documents. DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGES 4.4 Plaintiffs combine complaints regarding two requests for production concerning "engineering surveys related to the demolition of structural concrete for Kyle Field." Plaintiffs further assert that these engineering surveys are required by an OSHA regulation. Manhattan is not acting as a demolition entity on this project, and has no documents responsive to this request. 4.5 Plaintiffs next complain that Manhattan failed to produce two safety reports referred to in other discovery documents. Plaintiffs cite in their motion, but not in their discovery responses, reports discussed in Manhattan I Vaughn's site specific safety manual for this project. Had Plaintiffs read the manual a little closer, they may have realized that the reports discussed on the

cited pages pertain to incidents involving Manhattan I Vaughn personnel, not employees of subcontractors. The employer of the injured employee is required to make the accident and

injury report. In this case, Lindamood Demolition employed Mr. Garcia, and they made a first report that has been produced in this matter. In fact, Plaintiffs refer to the report within their Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs have the documents they are looking for.

v. Manhattan I Vaughu

5.0 As with Vaughn, Plaintiffs assert Manhattan I Vaughn (hereinafter "Manhattan I Vaughn") failed to file its discovery responses on time. These discovery requests were also the

subject of the aforementioned Rule 11 agreement, as mentioned earlier in the response. See Exhibits "E" and "F," true and correct copies of Manhattan I Vaughn's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Josefina Garcia's First Request for Production and First Set of Interrogatories, respectively, both attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. Additionally, both documents demonstrate that they were timely served under the Rule 11 agreement and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGE9 5.1 Plaintiffs lodge yet another complaint about the lack of designation of BATES ranges for documents responsive to their individual requests for production. As discussed above, Defendants can and have produced documents as kept in the ordinary course of business. See TEX. R. C1v. P. 196.3(c). Accordingly, this complaint is without merit. 5.2 Plaintiffs yet again complain regarding the alleged lack of production of "documents and plans of Kyle Field," including information pertaining to demolition work to be performed on the northeast pedestrian ramp. This is, yet again, a request for all design documents for the Kyle Field Redevelopment project, which is obviously unlimited in time and scope. Defendant presented its objections to this request, and again directed Plaintiff to production made in this matter. Multiple sets of drawings, including drawings related to demolition, have been produced in this matter. 5.3 Plaintiffs again seek project specifications for demolition work, this time allegedly referenced in two previously-produced documents. This request was also included in RFP 13, discussed above, including Defendant's objections. However, the two previously-produced documents cited by Plaintiff in the motion are not included in the request, nor are they attached to the motion. Nonetheless, Defendant, after making its objections, again referred Plaintiffs to production in this matter. The two pages cited by Plaintiffs are actually portions of the drawing list made part of the contract documents in this matter. As previously noted, sets of demolition drawings have already been produced in this matter. 5.4 Plaintiffs seek "actual" project schedule for demolition activities rather than the "draft" schedule provided. This request does not specify what schedule Plaintiffs are looking for, such as the overall project schedule for all trades through 2015 maintained by Manhattan I Vaughn or DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGE 10 the demolition schedule prepared by Lindamood. Lindamood's demolition schedule has been produced repeatedly in this matter, and thus satisfied Plaintiffs' request. 5.5 Plaintiffs again seek "engineering surveys related to the demolition of structural concrete of Kyle Field." Plaintiffs again combine two requests into one complaint. Plaintiffs contend these surveys are required by OSHA "standard" I 926.850(a). Actually, OSHA produces regulations, not standards. Texas law supplies duties and standards of care, not OSHA regulations. See Abarca v. Scott Morgan Residential, Inc., 305 S.W.3d 110, 128 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 ' 1 Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) ("Texas courts have also held that the common law duties imposed by state law are not expanded by OSHA regulations."). In this phase of the project, no separate documents entitled "Engineering Surveys" have been created or received by the Defendants. The demolition plans signed and sealed by structural engineer of record Rogers Moore satisfy the requirements of engineering surveys, and have already been produced in this matter. 5.6 Plaintiffs next seek "all documents, details, or sketches addressing specific dimensions and scope of demolition." Plaintiffs also seek BIM models, images, and data be used for construction. However, no explicit request for BIM material was made, and as this is electronic material, the request does not conform to Rule 196.4 regarding the production of electronic data, it may be ignored as improper discovery. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 196.4 (regarding discovery of electronic materials). Responsive, non-electronic documents responsive to this request have already been produced in this matter. 5.7 Plaintiffs next assert Manhattan I Vaughn failed "to identify all permits obtained for the demolition work performed at Kyle Field." Rather than complain about a response to a request for production, this is a complaint regarding an interrogatory answer. And, after lodging proper DEFENDANT'S REsPONSE PAGE 11 objections, Manhattan fully answered the interrogatory. It stated it had none, and referred Plaintiffs to the answers provided by Lindamood Demolition, Inc., the demolition subcontractor for the project. The request also assumes that demolition permits were required for this project. Plaintiffs cite no legal basis whereby demolition permits would be required for this project.

VI.

Texas Cutting & Coring LP 6.0 Plaintiffs' allegation that Texas Cutting & Coring, LP's discovery responses were late is without a basis in fact, including the supposed deadline Texas Cutting & Coring, LP was to have answered discovery. Although Plaintiffs assert Texas Cutting & Coring, LP was to have answered by April 30, 2014, Texas Cutting & Coring, LP was not sued until Plaintiff filed his First Amended Petition on April 17, 2014. Even if the new petition was served on the same day it was filed, and there was discovery included with the petition, the soonest Defendant would have to answer would be fifty days after the dates of service, thus making discovery due at the earliest June 6. 2014. Nonetheless Texas Cutting & Coring, LP timely answered the request for disclosure attached to Plaintiffs petition and all subsequent discovery served upon it. See Exhibit "G," a true and correct copy of Texas Cutting & Coring, LP's response to Plaintiffs request for disclosure, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. Plaintiffs' assertion in this regard is wholly without merit.

VII.

Lindamood 7.0 As with the previous defendant, Plaintiffs assert that Lindamood Demolition, Inc. (hereinafter "Lindamood") failed to file its discovery responses on time. These discovery requests were also the subject of the aforementioned Rule 11 agreement, as mentioned earlier in DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE 12 the response. As with all of the other defendants, Lindamood timely answered this discovery. See Exhibits "H" and "I," true and correct copies ofLindamood's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Josefina Garcia's First Request for Production and Interrogatories, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim. 7.1 Plaintiffs complain Lindamood did not "provide any of the requested information regarding past "OSHA violations. Actually, Interrogatory No. 7 requested all "violations, investigations, citations, warning letters, or reports involving Lindamood for the past ten years regarding: falls, deaths, or the improper on-site operation of construction vehicles, including but not limited to skid steer loaders or demolition." Of course, the interrogatory assumes there are responsive documents. However, once Defendant made its proper objections to the request, Defendant directed Plaintiff to previously-made production. However, as written, Lindamood has no documents responsive to this request, as Lindamood understands the request. 7.2 Plaintiffs next complain that Plaintiffs failed to "identify all remedial measures it took after the subject incident." Defendant again objected to this Interrogatory, which is Interrogatory No. 18, as exceeding the number of permissible interrogatories, and lodged other objections to this interrogatory. Further, this interrogatory is so poorly written it is impossible to determine what information it seeks. Without clarification, Defendant is unable to provide any answer to the interrogatory. 7.3 Plaintiffs again complain that a defendant "failed to identify all permits obtained for the demolition work performed at Kyle Field. Defendant objected again that Plaintiffs had exceeded the maximum amount of interrogatories. Defendant made additional objections to the request as well. However, subject to those objections, Defendant answered it had no documents responsive

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE 13

to this interrogatory. As stated previously, Plaintiffs assume, without a cited basis, that demolition permits were required for this project. 7.4 Plaintiffs complain Lindamood failed to identify "any workers employed by Defendant who were injured on [the] Kyle Field project since the date of the subject incident. Plaintiffs' assertion is incorrect in several respects. First, the interrogatory as written asks for the identity of every worker injured on the job since the Kyle Field Renovation project began, not just Defendant's. Obviously, Defendant cannot know the identity of everyone who may have been hurt on the project. Second, after making proper objections, Defendant identified Mr. Garcia as the only person it knew of as having being hurt during the Project. Plaintiff incorrectly asserts Defendant identified no one in its answer. 7.5 Plaintiffs complain the "List of Witnesses" were not included with the Employer's First Report of Injury or otherwise produced. However, Plaintiff does not indicate which Request for production this document would have been responsive to. Further, as has been shown throughout this response, Plaintiff has not shown a great inclination to search through Defendant's voluminous document production in this matter to find responsive documents. The document in question is a copy of the attendance sheet for the morning JSA with an "X" marking the identity of the witness. This document can be found at LMD 000755 and was part of a supplementation to discovery. 7.6 Plaintiffs contend "contract documents" were not included with Defendant's subcontract with Manhattan I Vaughn, but do not describe what documents they believe are missing. Plaintiff also again fails to identify which request for production this complaint pertains to. These deficiencies make it impossible to respond to this complaint. DEeENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE 14 7.7 Plaintiffs next contend the written statement of Daniel Burge is incomplete, but fail to describe how it is incomplete. Plaintiffs also again fail to identify a request for production to which this complaint pertains. Without this information, it is impossible to respond to this complaint. 7.8 Plaintiffs continue their quest for engineering surveys related to demolition and the identity of persons involved in the surveying for the demolition. At least in this request, the Plaintiffs identify specific requests for production that purportedly sought the complained-of documents, although now three different requests have been compressed into one complaint. As indicated herein, the signed and stamped demolition plans prepared by structural engineer of record Rogers Moore serve as the engineering surveys for this phase of the project. 7.9 Plaintiffs end their complaints with yet another repeated complaint. This time, it is allegedly missing incident reports, or portions thereof. The actual request, RFP 40, is much broader. It seeks "All reports of the incident made by any party or person." This is a reference to reports discussed in Lindamood's safety plan. However, because of the nature of the incident and the immediate investigation of the incident by several governmental agencies and counsel for Lindamood, Lindamood performed no accident investigation on its own. Accordingly, it has no documents responsive to this request.

VIII.

Prayer 8.1 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants J.T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, d/b/a Vaughn Construction, Manhattan I Vaughn, Manhattan Construction Co., Inc., Texas Cutting & Coring, LP, and Lindamood Demolition, Inc. ask the Court to dismiss deny Plaintiffs Motion, and for all

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE 15

other relief Defendants may show themselves entitled to, whether individually or collectively, and whether in law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

THE MILLER LAW FIRM

Isl Clark S. Butler MICHAEL A. MILLER State Bar No. 14100650 mmiller@tmlfpc.com

CLARKS. BUTLER State Bar No. 00793437 cbutler@tmlfoc.com

Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste 1950 Dallas, Texas 75219 (469) 916-2552 telephone (469) 916-2555 facsimile

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS J. T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, dlbla VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, TEXAS CUTTING & CORING, LP, AND LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record on this 31st day ofJune, 2014:

Via E-Filing Jason A. Gibson The Gibson Law Firm 440 Louisiana, Suite 2050 Houston, Texas 77002 Counsel for Plaintiffs Isl Clark S. Butler CLARKS. BUTLER

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE PAGE 16

Page 4 iDepos Prepared for dscott@tmlfpc.com 1 P R 0 C E E D I NGS 2 (Carol Ramirez sworn as interpreter.) 3 (The oath was administered.) 4 MR. BUTLER: Just a little housekeeping 5 first. While prepping for this depo, I noticed that 6 back in April you guys sent us some- responses to 7 interrogatories that are not only not verified but a they're not signed by y'all, so I'll bring .that to your 9 attention. 10 MR. SNEED: Okay. 11 MR. BUTLER: Short of filing a motion to 12 compel ahead of time, so just want to put that on the 13 record, bring it to your attention. Now I'll proceed 14 with the depo. 15 MR. SNEED: Thanks for bringing that to my 16 attention. 17 MR. BUTLER: That was just a legal 18 document that there was a technicality I wanted to bring 19 to their attention. 20 ORBELINDA HERRERA, 21 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 22 EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. BUTLER: 24 Q. Would you please state your name.

25 L~~~A~·~---O~r~b~e~l~in~d~a.:__H~e.:__r~r~er~a.:__·~~~~~~~~~~-4....,~I::!:!'..... https://www.my.pdf-it.com/idepos/ 1_1

A.PR-02-2014 14 :04 tflt Gl9SON LA'.ol FIRM

Ten MILLER LAW.FIRM

MK"'h 31, 2014

t1g F(IS!bnUt!. J•50n A. Gibson AndniwSmilll Cllffocd O, Peel, IT 'l'hc Oibson Law Finn 2050 Tho Lyrio Con~• 440 Louildana Ho11.1tun. 'l'X 77002 Rit CaU,Sd /'lo. 201J.. 16SStJ: Jwrt,f1nu Gattla, 'd al v. J.T. Va~htt Const_ruct/Qn, UC, el 111; 1,, thtt 8~ lJl'itric-t Court of·Rarrl1 County, Ttxas f'll~ No.

Dur Ja~n: In- reJpanso to your 11grccmcnt 10 IJ."l.k:nd th4 dcwJllne11 fof Defende.ttts to mpond tn Pln.lnUffi! discov.ory ~\!0$1S, .thl5. w:ill c~n-tirqt-.Plaintiffs -he.vc Jpd 10 q11.tcnd the- time-for DotCndim.ts 10 l'il~ I iocrvi:i th"ir objcGttons. MRliWOt'li. rmd -1'CSiXJ1ucs- tO the lbllowing di$(.('!tt?)' l'eqU«i\$ un1il April ]Q. 1014;

1. l"laindtr~ Pl.Qt S1:t of lntC'iroptoTies to Oot'enda~t To~s Curb-Cui,. lnc.: 2. l'lalntlfrs First }«quest fbr Ptoductl!;)n 10 Defendant, Toxos Cu:Tb·Cui_. lnc.:_ 3. Pbtntitrs Fi~l Sci of ln1ermp1orlc-s_1a 01,,fendant. MarihanM Con.liU11¢tion Co,. l_ne.: 4. Plaintitts First Request for Pkiductlon lo Defendant. Manh11Rlft GonsQ'Uoti~n· Ca.1 111c.) s. ~laiJ)U[f-il Fir81 Set or lntetroaatoritS:-to Oef<!Jldant,. Mailhilttiln ! -V.a1,1ghn, JVP; 6. PtaQ'itifrR ~·im Rcquftl fur P-roduedon lU Dcfl:nd3'1~ MoMaUonJ Vaughn,_ JVP; 7. Plalnttrri Fil~ Set of lil_tcrrou1('lrl6f. IQ Defendant, Liriditri'toocl Dt.molili~. ~o., I. PlninlltrS Firtt R.e(\uest for Produ~tfon tCJ DefendlD'lt. _Lindamood DemGiiti(;in. Inc.; 9; PJainun·s First Set of JntorrQ1at(lrlos 10 D~&!ndant, 'fe1$ Cutting 8! Gorlng Group, Inc.: 10. Plalndff's First Request·for Production to Defendanl, Tc:(ftl Cu1tinQ. .~Coring-Group. ll~.; 11. Ptalntlt'f'iJ _Pl_rst Set ofln,t.:rr~iorh:1110 Dcfcndtlnt,-J. T. V41.113hn Co(l.9.ll"Uttion, LLC, Wa. Vauahn Cnl\'strut;tlon; a.rt~

AP!t~D2.·20J 4 l&r04 THB GIBS'ON L~'f.I f'IRH F',00)

Maroh 31, 201.t Pnge2.

12. PlalnUfr!f Flr.i.r Rcquesl for Production tD Defendant. J. T. VClUlilhn Constru"llQn. LLC, d/bl:ii Va\ighn ConstJU<:lil'lit

?le.so- indicate yo\lr agmmcn1 by 11isnine in tr- spnce provided bolciw and rctumi~ the slltned letter"' wu miiy lilo willi the Coun pursurun 10- Rule 11, Texas Rules of Ch1 il Proccchll't.

lf)'OU have any qucltlons, please dt> not ha:tita1o to i:aU.

Sin¢Q'c;Jy,

Id Mtcl~~l ..f, 1\tffll~r

Mlehaol A. ;,jlllot

.Cl '. O. Peef1-0 lno®-LowPIM 20101'1lo Lyric Centro 440 l.QU!lion• ~ston, TX 11002 Ph: (11>) 6lCl-lOIO Pox: (713) 6SO.IOl I

Cu..,./ jar P/nl/l/fjft

Tt>T AL P' , Q',)j

THE GIBSON LAV FlkH P.001

G THE C31BSON LAW FIRM

FAX COVER SHEET

TO: Michael A. Miiier FAX: (469) 918-2555 The Miiier Lew Firm

DATE: Apol 2, 2014 FROM: Jason A. Gibtonlss WE ARE SENDING (3) PAGES (including this page).

RE: causo No. 2013-16550; Joaaflne Garcia, Individually, otal v. J. T. Vaughn Construotion, LLC dMa Veughn Construotion. ot et In the so'" Judicial Plslriet Court, Harris County, Texaa

MESSAGE: Please see attached: 1) Gigne<l Rule 11 Dated March a1, 2014,

If you do not receive the entire FAX, or are not receivin9 lt clearly, please call us at (713) 650-1010.

-----------··---····· TH! LV..tc CeNT"e, 440LDlH•IANAt SUITC 240Q, HttUCITCINt i'X ?'70015 PHI,.,. 131 6'50•1010 v~x: (71S1 t!i&D~l-011 TCIU.. l'Rliltl l•tt6G•UAC?iFtRM (!124•34761 WWW,J"AG•L..AWJ."I Fi M.C-tlM

CAUSE NO. 2013·76550

JOSEFINA GA.RCIA, lndtvlduaUy and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Heh• to the Estate of ANGEL GARCIA § (Dcceiilcd); and ORBELINDA HERRERA, § As Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and § BRIAN GARCIA (Minors), § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § HARlUS COUNTY, TEXAS, § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, § MANHAT1'AN CONSTRUCTION CO., !NC., § MANiiATTAN I VAUGHN, JVP, § TEXAS CURB CUT, INC., TEXAS CUTTING § & CORING GROUP, INC., and LINDAMOOD § DEMO LITTON, INC., § § Defendants. § soTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT J. T.VAUGHN CQNSTRUCTION, LLC,d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OB.JEC'fJONS AND RESPONSES TOPLA.IN'l'JFFS JOSEFINA. GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

TO: PlalntHfs, Josephina Garcia, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garel11, by and tbrm1gh her counsel of record Jason A. Gibson, Andrew Smith, Clifford D. Peel ii of The Gibson Law Firm, 2050 The Lyric CentR, 440 Louisiana Jn Ho11sto11, Texas 77002.

Defendant J. T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, d/b/a Vaughn Construction (hereinafter "Vaughn" or "Defendant'') serves its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs, Josephina Carola, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia First Requests for Production, pursuant lo Rules 192, 193 and 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure. ,.. IBIT

l~C,,,_. PEfRNDANt J. T. VAUGHNCON:ITRUCTION,LLC, PfB/A VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND llESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIV& OFTllE ltSTATK OF ANGEL CARCl.\'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. J 1

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REQUE§T FOR PR®UCTION NO. 1: All records documenting Angel Garcia's cmploymenl with Vaughn Construction, including but not limited to personnel files, work history, time logs, payment records and training logs.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request, as written, as overly broad and .lacks the degree ofspecificity required under theTexas Rules of Civil Proc~tire.

Subject to and wilhout waiving the foregoing objections, none as Angel 011reia is not employed by Vaughn Construction,

REQUEST FOR PROPUCTIQN NO. 2; All contraGts or other Written agreements.entere<I between Vmighn Construction, Texas A & M or any defendW1t in 1his case, related to U1e Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request, as written, as overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree ofspecificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Proced.ure and potentially seeks infotillation not reasonably calculated tb lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving !he !lforementloried objections, otherwise see production.

REQVEST FOR PROJ>UCTION NO. 3; All correspondence between Vaughn Construction, Texas A & Mor any other entity or defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to correspondence related to contracts or agreements for the performance of activities related to construction, construction management, accident prevention or safety at the worksite.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request, as written, !Ill overly broad as to t.ime and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject lo and without waiving the foregoing obj¢ctlons, see production, ir any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 4; All. documents related to, documenlinQ or describing the scope of work to be performed by Vaughn Construction.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request ns overly. brpad as lo lime and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the liforementio11ed objections, see production.

DEFENDANT J, T. VAUGHN CONSffiUCflON, LLC, D/8/A VAUGllN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO Pl.AINTIFFSJDSEFINA GARCIA,INDIVIOUAL[,V AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANCEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. ( 2

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S: All d.ocuments related lo or discussing.demolition work, purchase of materials, supplies, provision of equipment, provision of labor, safety, insurance and workers' compensation, as it applies to any defendant in this oase.

RESPONSE: Defendant.objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of$pecificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to tlte extent the request seeks inforlJlation neither relevant nor reasonable calculated to lead to the .discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendant further objects ti> "all documcn!S" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "iishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 176 s.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if ariy

REQUESTFORPROOUCTION NO. 6; All .documents and correspon<ience related lo the progress of the Kyle Field renovation project between or among the parties, including Vaughn Construction, tindamood, or any other party with responsibilities on the Kyle Field renovation project site.

RE$PONSE: Defendant o_bjects to this reque8t as vague, overly broad. as tp time and si:ope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further ol>jects to the extent the request sl)Cks information neither relevant nor reasonable calculated toJead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendant further objects to "all <iocuments and correspondence" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waivfog the foregoing objections, see production, If any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7; All notes and documents In possession of Vaughn C.onstructlon regarding inspections performed by OSHA on the Kyle Field renovation project

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request is overly broad as to time and scope, ond lacks the degree of specificity required under the TC1Cas Rules of Civil Procedu!<l, Defendant further objects to the extent such request seeks Information that is protected by the attomey- client I attorney work product privileges. Sec 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an hnpennissible "flshlngexpedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is not in possession of. discoverable documents responsive to this req11est.

DEPENDANT J, T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, Ll.C, D/B/,\ VAUGHN CONSTRUCTfON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSESTOPJ.AINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARC!A, INDJVIDUAf,f;V AND AS REl'RKS~NTATiVE OF Tim ESTA TE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S ~IRBT REQU'EST FOR PRODUCTION P. I3

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTlON NO. 81 All documents related to inspections done on the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to the area where Angel Garcia was working and killed.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request is vague and overiy !:>road as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks information protected by the work product and attorney client privilege.

Defendant further objects to "illl 4ocum¢nts" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "llshlngexpedltion." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.!}; All minutes of meetings (or other similar document) at which planning, risk management, engineering, demolition or safety was discussed.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request is vague and overly broad as to litne and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity rQ(juired under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the bl!sis that it seeks production of documentation that is neither relevant norreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in !his.case.

Defendant further objects to "all minutes" to the e~tont sµch request constitute~ an impermissible "fishinl! expedition,• Loftin v, Martin, 776 s,W.2d 145, 148 (Tel<. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, sec production, if any.

BEQUE§T FOR PRQDUCTIQN NO. 10; All recordings or videos of the work being perfonned on the Kyle Field renovation project, including audio o.r video footage of the incident in qul).~tion.

8ESPONSE1 Dcfendaill objects to this request as.overly broad .as to time and scope. Snbjecl to and wilho\lt waiving the aforementioned objections, see productimt, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUC'UQN NO. 11; All do~'Uments idelitifying safety issues or concerns as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation, including but not limited to the demolition process and the work being perform!ld by Angel Garcia and his employer.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this req11est is vague a11d overly broad as lo time and scope, and lacks the degree ofspeciticity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that It seeks production of docun1en1ation that is neither relevant nor rellSonably calculated to lead io the discovery of l\Qmissible evidence in this case.

DEFi!flDANT J, T. VAUGHN C!lN!ITRUCTION, LLC, D{D/A VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLi\INTIFl'S JOSKFINA CARCIA, INDtVIPllALLY AND l\S REPRESENTATIVE OF TllE FJITATE OF·ANGEL CARCIA 'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PROD\ICTION P. 14

Defendant l.\Jrther objects to "all documents to the extent such request constitutes an impennisslble "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776.S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see produ~tlon, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12; All documents mentioning actions taken by defend1111ts to correct any safety is.,ues that were i~tified, as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation project.

HESPONSE; Defendant objects to tills request is vague and overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Pl'Ocedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis thi>t it seeks producti\'ln of documentation that Is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated lo lead to the discovery of: admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to ''all documents... to the extent such request constitutes an impenllissible ''fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S;W,2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989) and seeks information protec!A!d under.Rule 407 ofthe TR!l.

REOUESl' FOR PROPQCTION NO. 13: All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renova.tion project, including but not limited to blue prints, specifications, structural general notes and struotuml plan sheets, defining demolition work to be perfonned on the existing notheast pedestrian ramp.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis. that it is overly broad !IS to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity require<! under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure and is therefore harassif\g.

Defendant further objects to "all documents and plans" as being va.gue, and also to the extent such request constilUles. au impermiasible "fishing expedition." Lpftln v. Martin. 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant als.o .objects to this Request to the extent said request seeks the production of dcouments and things that urc neithe1· relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead lo the discovery of admissible evidence. ·

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. l4i All documents including specifications, general conditions and suppfomental conditions generated by any party or other ehtity, describing the scope of work and/or services (specifically including safety and demolition) to be done on the Kyle Field renovation project.

llF.FENOANT J. T. VAUGHN CONS"l'RUCTION, Ll.C, DIR/A VAUGHN CONSJ'RUC.'TION'S OJIJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OP THE ESTATE OF ANOF.I, GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOii rkODllCTION r. Is

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this requeslon the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objeots to "all document~" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishi11g expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S,W.2d 14S, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant also objects to this. Request to the extent said. requ~t seeks the production of dcouments and things that nre n.either relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to. the discovery of admissible evi!lence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All cotrespondcnce between Vaughn Construction and any other entity involved with the Kyle Field renovation project that mentions job progress, scheduling, safety, hazar4 identification or job-site hazards.

RESPON$E: Defendant objects to this request on the basls that It is multifarious, overly broad es to time and seope, and lacks the degree .of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an i111permisslble "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent said request seeks the production of dcouments and things that are ne!U1er relevant nor reasonablyc11lculatcd to lead to the discovery of admissibl.e evidence. ·

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see pro.duction, if any.

@QUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO.J6: All documents related to the (<yle Fiel.d renovation project, which mention lhe methods and/or schedule of pcrfonnance of demoli1lon work to be performed by Vaughn Construction and its employees.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects 10 this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant furt.her o~jec1s 10 "ull documents" to the exlont such request constitutes an Impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

MOUEST FQRPRODUCT!ON NQ, 17; All minules of Pre,C<ln.struction meetings related to Kyle Field renovation project

DEFENDANT J, T. \IAUCHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, !>/BIA VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLl\INTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF TliR F.STATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.16

RESPONSJi'.; . Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague in scope, overly broad as to nme and scope, and lacks the degre<: of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such requ~t constitutes an impermissible "fishing eXpedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 s. W.2d 145, I48 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant illso objects to this Request to the extent said request seeks the production of dcouments and things that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to leAd to the di8covery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, ifany ..

R£0UE,$T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All c.ontracts issued by Vaughn Construction related to the structural demolition scope of work bei11g perfonned on the northeast pedestrian ramp where the subject incident occurred on 121312013.

RESPONSEj Responsive documents will be produced.

REQUEST FOR fRODUCII()N NO. 19: All correspondence and emails between Vauglrn Construction and Lindumood related to demolition activities and the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents atid things that are protected by the joint-defense, nt1omey-clicnt, and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject to and without waivll\j! the aforementioned objections, responsive documents will be produced.

R£0UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All documents reflecting responsibilities of Vaughn Construction employees related to performance or oversight of demolition activities.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects .to "aH documents" to the extent such request con~titutes an impennissible"fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the demolition of the walls and beams in question were the responsibility of Lindamood and their employees.

DEFENDAN1' J, l', VAUGllN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DIBIA VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND RltSPONSES TO PLAINTIFFSJOSEFtNA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRf.SENTATIVE OF THE ESTi\TEOF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PROl>TJcTION P.17

REQUEST FOR PRODPCTION NO, U: All documents which show engineering surveys p~rformed b~ any p~rty or entity, related to the demolition of structural concrete for the Kyle l11elq renovanon ProJcct, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR l 926;8SO(a),

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis t.ha.t it is overly broad as to tim.e and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity req11ired under tl1e Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishh1g expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, f48 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N9. 21; All documentation and correspondence discussing engineering surveys performed by any party or entity, related to the demolition of structural concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant t6 OSHA 29 CFR l 926.8SO(a).

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis lhat it is overly broad as to lime and scope, and Jacks the degree ot'specificity requil'ed under the Texas Rules ofCivi!Procedure.

Defendant further 'obJC\ltS to "aU documentation and corrospondonce" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All documents reflecting qualifications and training of persons wbo performed engineering surveys related to ihe demoUtion of S!l'llbtural c.oncrete on the Kyle Field renovation project, prusuantto OSHA 29 CFR 1926.SSO(a).

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it Is overly broad as lo time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rvles of Civil Procedure and fails to correctly quote OSHA 29 CFR 1.926.850 (a) for the demolition in question.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to .the extent su.ch request constitules an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documenls reflecting qualifications and training of persons who operated equipment (machinorY) for Lindamood such as the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Oarcia at the time of bis 4eath.

RESPONSE: Defendaut objects to this request on 1he basis !bat it is overly broad ns to time and scope, and lacks the degree ohpecificiiy required under tho Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

DEFENDANT J. T. VAUGHN CQNSTRUCTION, LLC, D/B/A VAUGHN CONS1'RUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESrONSES TOPl.AINTlPFS JOSEFINA GAllCIA, INDtV!DllAt,i..v AND AS REPRF.:SENl'ATIVE OF THE ESTATE Gt ANGEL GARCIA'S F.lnST llEQut.qr FOR PRODUCTION P. j 8

Defendant further objects lo "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impennissiblc "fishing expedhion." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. i989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, Otherwise, please refer to Defendant Lindamood's production herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUcylON NO. 25: All documents, details or sketches addressing U1e specific dimensions and scope of the den1olilion of the concrete sti'Ucture being worked on by Angel Garcia immediately prlorto the subject collapse that led to Mr. Garcia's fall.

BES&:QN8E1. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that. it is overly broad as to time and scope, aod lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules ofClviLProcedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitu~s an Impermissible "fishing expedition." Loflin v. MartitJ, 776 S.W.2d l4S, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant fu11her objects on grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things. that are .protected by the joint•defcnse, attomey·client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject to and without waiving the forngoing objections, responsive documents, if any, will be produced.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO!j NO. 26: All documents refleetlng observations by any party or person regarding the nature of spalling (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition. acitivites prior to the time of the subject incident

BESPONSE; Defendant obje<its to this request 011 the basis that it is overly broad as to lime and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required qndilr the Texas Rules of CMI Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impenrtJssible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 716 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant fu11her objects on grounds that Ibis Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject ·to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents, if any; will be produced. ·

DEF&NDANT J. T. VAUGHN. CONSTRUCTION, LLC, D/BIA VAUGHN cONSTRUCrlON'S 011.JECTIONS ANll IU:SPONSES T() PLAINTIFFS JOSEl'iNt. GATICIA, tNDIVtDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE or THE ESTATE.OF ANGllL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. j9

~OPEST FOil PRODUCTION NO. 27; All docQments showing inspeclions and inspection results of the demolition acitivltles being perfonned on the northeast spiral, pedestrian ramp.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civll Procedure. Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d. l 45, 148 (Tex, 1989).

Defendant further objects on gt•oumls that this Request seeks the production of documents and thing& that are protected by the joint.defense, attorney-client,. and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents will be produced,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All Job Hazard Analyses, J9b Safety Analyses (JHA, JSA or similar such fonnal process) done for the work activities of the demolition of structural concrete ofthe northeast pedestrian ramp, including tlJe specific work being done by Angel Oacla.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects tothis request on the basis that it Is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required Lmder the Texas Rules of Civil Pr1>cedure.

Defendant further objects on the grounds that th.is request seeks the production of docume!'ts and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit an.d not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admlS$ible evidence.

Subject to. ond without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive docwnents will be produced, If any.

BEOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All. documents and plans for temporary shoring to be u.tiiized during the demolition work of stnictural concrete of the northeast pedestrian ramp, at the location of the stibject incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope,potentially mMeading as written,. ond lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules.ofCivil Procedure.

Defendant.further objects to "all documents and plans" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S;W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

DEFENDA.r;'i' J, T, VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, D/BIA VAIJGHNC()NSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND R~PONSES TO.Pl-\11'(1'.IFFS JOSEFINA GAR~IA, INDIVIDllAL!.Y AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF Tl!E ESTATE OFANGELGARCIA'S FIRST REQUllST FOR PRODUCTION P. / 10

RlijOUEsT FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All eorrespond"1!ce, documents and emails bct;veen. V®ghn Construction (or any other party or entity) and Lindamood, reflecting the des)gnallon of a. Competent Person pl'l!posed. by Lindllll!ood for the Kyle Field renovation pro,1ect, as required by OSHA regulations 29 CFR l 926.20(b)(2).

See production.

REOUE§T FOR fRODUCTION NO. 311 All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safely-related rules and requirements for all work to be performed within.the scope of the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objecrs to the terms "safety management,", "aceid~nt prevention programs," "safety related rules," and "requirements for all work to bo perfonned" as those tenn~ and phrases are not defined and, as written, are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdens\'.lme. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated lo lead to the discovery of admissible evidence In this case.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent suclwequest C9DSlitutes an impennissiblc "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving th5 foregoing objections, see production,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safety•related rules, etc. related to . the Kyle Field renovation project, created or adopted by Vauglm Constniction prior to the incident which were required by the authority of V•ughn Construction to be utilized by subcontractors or others on the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is ov~ly bl'Oad as to lime and scope, Md lacks the degree of specificity required qnder the Texas· Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the terms "safety n1anagenient," , "accident prevention programs," "safety related rules," and "etc." as those terms and phrases are not defined and, as written, are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Defendant f\irther objects to this request, as written, it seeks infonnation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant t\lrU1er objects to this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

DEFENDANT J. T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, l,LC, D/DIA VAUGllN CONS1'RUCT10N'.S OQJEC'rlONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSllVINA GARCIA, 1.NDl'i'IDUALLY .AND AS Rll;PRE&F.NTATIVE OF THE ESTATE.OF ANGELOARCIA'S JIJRST REQUF.~T FOR PRODUCTION P. IJ 1

Rl!;OUE§T FQR PRQDUCTION NO. 33: All published requirements of any federal, state or local a~cy or 1111r relat~ standard of any national consensus standard promulgating organl~tion, addressm~ requirements or recommendations for accident prevention and for the protection ofemployees or others on site with which Vaughn Construction acknowledges they or others ~nder the authority of Vaughn Construction were to <lQmply or operate on the Kyle Fielc! renovation project on the date of the incident.

HESPONS!if; Defendant objects to this request on !he basis that it seeks production of documentation that is publically available and equally available to the requesting party. Defendant further objeclll to this request on tho basis that it seeksdocUtnents that is neither relevant nor re.asonably calculated to lead to the djs<lQvery of admissible evidence in this case.

Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the extent Defendant understands the request, Defendant would refer Plaintim to the Manhattan I Vaughn Project Site Specific Safety Plan for the Kyle Field Stadium Redevelopment and !he Subcontract between Manhaltan I Vaughn and the Defendant subcontrnctors.

REOUES'f FQR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents reflecting s.tatements by employees of Vaughn Construction or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the incident in question.

RF.SPONSE: Defendant objects to this request lo the extent it is. duplicative of R.uic 194 requests anc!, therefore, overly broad and outside the permissible scope of the rules pursuant lo Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

l'lEOUE§T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35; All documents rel1ecting statements by employees of Vaughn Const1uction or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the events leading uup to the subject incident, or the incident itself.

!lESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Rule 194 requests and, therefore, overly broad and outside the pennissible scope of the rules pursuant to Rule 194, Ti>xas Rules of Civil Procedure.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All initial-employment safety orientation, any specific safety management or accident prevention training or seminars provided Vaughn Consbuctlon 01· by any party, to employees of any contractor Ol' subcontractor working on the Kyle Field renovation project.

BESPONSE: Defendant objects lo this reque.st on the basis that it is overly broad a~ to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the terms "safety management," , "accident prevention training or seminars," as those terms and phrases are not defined and, as written, are vagu~, overly broad, nnd unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks

DEF£NDANT J. T. VAUGHN CQNSTRUCTION, LLC, P/B/A VAUGHN CONSTRIJCTION'S OBJECTIONS AND RF.SPON8ES TO PLAtNTll'FS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDIJJ\.Ll,Y AND AS REPRl!SENTATIVE OF THE f.STATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIUST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. J ll

infonnatlon that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant flirther objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible. "fishing expedition.• Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregping objectjons, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION NO. 37: All perfodic reports of the progress of work performed on th!lKyleField renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects this request as vague and overly broad as to lime and scope.

Defendant further objects on the groun~s that this request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REOUESI FOR PRODIJQ'!ON NO. 38: All repo11s Qf accidents, on the job injuries or accident statlstioo related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lack$ the degree of sp()Cificity requi~ under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant mrther .objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the work product am! Qt attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request, as Mitten, it seeks infonnation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney· client, and attorney work•product privileges.

Defendant further objects to th.is Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things which are proprietary and confidential.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, s~ production, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTrON NO. 39; All records or minutes of periodic safety "toolbox" or "tailgate" meetings perfonned on the job site, dating from the commencement of demolition activities through 12131/20 l3, with employees and/or with other contractors or subcontra11ctors on the Kyle Field renovation project, including records of the topics discussed and attendance lists.

RESPQNSE: Defendant Qbjects to this request on the basis that il is overly broad as to tiine and scqpe, and lacks the dosree of specificity required under the Texas R11les of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, if seeks information that is neither relevant

DEFENDANT J, T. VAUGllN CONStllUCTION, LLC, D/BIAVAllGHN CONSTllUCTION•s OnJEC'flONSAND RES.PONSES TO PLAINTIFFSJOSEl'INA GARCIA, INDJVIDUALLV AND AS REPRESEN'l'ATIVF. OP THE 1'11TATE OJI ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRObUC'rlON P. J13

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence In this case.

Defendll!lt further objects this request .to the extent such request constitutes an impe1missible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obJectlolls, responsive documents will .be produced, ifany.

REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 401 All reports of the Incident made by any party or person.

RE§PQNSE: Defendant objects lo this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent such request potentially se.eks d.ocunients protected by the attorney/client and attorney-work-product privileges. See Rule 192.3, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 503, Texas Rules.of Evidence.

Defe!!dant further objects this request to the extent such request consti!Ules an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989).

Subject to and without waivinglhe foregoing objections, see production, if nny.

REOUE§T FOR fRODU(;TIQN NQ, 4lt All schedulds related to the Kyle Field renovation project, listing mihistone dates, depicting the proposed progress of constmcti\ln, schedules reflecting proposed progress for demolition activities on the subject pedestrian ramp involved in the subject incident.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request Qn the basis that It is overly brpad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the TeKas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further obje.ets to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the .discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant f11rther objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d14S, 148 (Tex.1989),

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQN NO. 421 All job-site safety inspection reports (dated from the start of construction of the Kyle Field renovation project through 12/31/2013).

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required nnder the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant ftlrtherobjects to this request, as wriuen, it seeks information. that is neithtr relevant

PEFENDANTJ, T, VllUGHNCONSTRIJCTION, LLC, DIB/A VAUGliNCOl'ISTRUC'l'IQN'SOllJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TOl'LAINTIPFS JOSEFINA. GARCIA, INDIViDUAt,Ly AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE l!STATEOFANGELGARCIA'S FIRSTREQUV.ST FOR PllODUCTION l'.114

... - ··--·-------------nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects thls request to the extent such request constitutes an imponnissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waJving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

REQUEST JIOR PRQDJJCTIQ:S NO· 43: All eheekiists utilized on the Kyle Field renovation P!OJect to assist ln performance of job-site safety inspectiOn efforts, and speciftcaily, all such cbecklis1s or documents which relate to pr mention the subject of demolition, siructural lnteg1ily or safety.

Rli:SPON§E; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope. and lacks the degree of specificity required under I.he Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks infunnatlon ihat is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead IO the discovery of ad1nissibic evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.~d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subjccno. and without waiving the foregoing objections, none known to this Defendant.

REQUEST FOR PRODJJCtION NO. 44: All written procedures or requirements for the pre-qualifioolion and selection of contractors or subcontract.ors for the Kyle Field renovation project.

RE§PONSE: Defendant objects IO this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Tex·as Rules of Civil Procedure. Defend~nt further objects to this reques~ as written, it seeks information that ls neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendartt further objec1s this request to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." LQitin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 14S, 148 (Tex, 1989).

Subj~t to and without waiving the foregoiug objections, Defendaut woui<I refer Plaintiffs the prilnary contract between Manhattan I Vaughn and.. lhe Board of Regents fQ1· the Texas A&M University System.

REOUE§T FOR l'RODUC'flON NO. 45: All records of formal training given IO any worker or employee (assigned to. the Kyle Field renovation project prior to the subject incident), rel.ated to the methods and.techniques of demolition 11ctivities, in general, and spcclfically, demolition of coner<lte structures.

DEFENDANT J, T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DID/A VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS ANO RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTA TR OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FmST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. j 15

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on tho basis that it is overly broad as to tin1e and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required \lllder the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information .ihat iS neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible !!vldence in this case.

Defendant f\1rther. objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible 'fishinQ expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and witho~t waiving .the. foregoing objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Lindamood Demolition, Inc. for the means and methods of the demolition work being performed at the time of the incident, and any traintn11 Lindamood provided to its employees.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 461 All reports generated as a result of the subject incident,

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks Information protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product I joint defense privileges, See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdurc; Rulo 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to the extent such Interrogatory, as written, seeks information protected by the consulting. expert privilege. See Rule t 92.J(e), Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to ''all reports" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d14S, 148 (Tex, 1989).

Subject to and without.waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to the Texas A&M Univeristy police Investigation previously produced herein.

QEOUE$T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47; All OSHA reports or documents, including correspondence, related. to the subject illcident.

llESpONSE; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, (lVerly broad as to time nnd scope, and, as written, seeks infonnation protected by the attorney-client /attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules. 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texus Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated Lo lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Subject to and without waivins the aforementioned objections, OSHA has not produced any report to Defendant'.s knowledge conceming the incident in question.

DEFENl),\NT J, T, VAUGHN COl>ISTR\ICTtON, U.C, 010/A VAUGHN CONSTnVCTION'SOll,JECTIONS AND RESPONSES ·ro Fl.AINTIFFS.JOSEflNA GARCIA, INDIVlllUALLYAND AS REPRESt:NTATIVE OP THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S.FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.116

REOUESt FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 181 AU documents related to. any investigation conductCll as a result oflhc incident in question.

BESPQNSE1 Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, ns written, seeks information. protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Ruic 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to the extent such request, as written, seeks infotmation protected by the cons1.1lting expert privilege. See Rule 192.J(e), Texas RUies of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waving the aforementioned objections, and would refer Plaintiffs ta documents previously produced herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Color copies of 1111 photographs and videos taken of the scene of the $\ibject incident, before and after the incident.

RESPONSE; Responsive documents will be prodllced.

BEOUEST FORPRODUCIJON l'fO. 50; All pictures and videos generated as a result of any investigation conducted after the Incident in question. RESPONSE; Responsive documents will be produced.

BEOUE§T FQR PROD(JCTIQN NO' 51: All videos and footage t~ken by the "construction cams" of the Kyle Field renovation project during the period of I J/J/2013 through 12131/2013.

RESPONSE; Defendant objecta to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and sco}ie, and seeks infonulllioo that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive.documents will be produced for the date of the incident.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION )\IQ. 521 All documents of the overall site plan retlecting the scope and layout of the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPON§E1 Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and harassing in scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to tl1e discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

DEFENDANT J, T. VAUGHN CONSTlltlCTION, LLC, D/B/A VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS ANll RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIYIDUALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTllE ESTATE OP ANG&LGARCIA'S FIRST REQUF.ST FOR PRODUCTION l'.117

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will supplement the plans and specifications the for Project.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 53; All dqcuments !eflecting the name of each company or contractor pfesent at the Kyle Field work site on the day Angel Oamia was killed.

REfil;ONSE1 Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad In scope and time, and requests production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovecy of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendailt further objects as to. ''all documents" to the extent such request constiiutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subjeeno and without waiving the foregoing objections, none for this Defendant.

REQUEST FOR PllQl>UCTION NO. S4: All documents reflectin~ !he names of every worker at the Kyle Field Work site on the day Angel Garcia was killed.

RESPQNSE1 Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad Jn scope, Md requests production of documentation that is neltl1e1• relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant farther objects as to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition.• Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 14.8 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none fur this Defendant

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: All specifications, limitations, maximtun weight loads 01· warnings provided with, or attached to, tl)e Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

RESPONSE; None in this Defendant's posession.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: The owner's and/cir o\1erator's manual for the Caterpillar Skid-Steer loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

RE!iPONSE: None in this Defendant's posession.

DEFENDANT J, T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, D/B/A VAUGHN CONSTRUCflON'S OBJECTIONS AND Rl:SPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JosltFINA GARCIA, ll'ID!VIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE V.STATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S Fm ST REQU!tST FOR rRODUCTION P. I 18

... - --------------------

REOVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO· 51: All structural integrity testing done (in the concrete structure in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the day of lhe incident in question. This Includes Wsting done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

RESPONSE: None in this Defendant's posessfon.

REQUE§T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: All testing, engineering or otherwise, done on the concrete structure in the area wher¢ Angel Garcia was working on the day of the incident in <iucstion, This includes testing done prior 1<1 and after the exact mome11t when tl1dncident in question occurred.

RESPONSE: None known to exist or In this Defendant's posession.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: All work plans for the specifio work Angel Garcia was perfomiing when he was killed.

3ESPONSE: Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Lindamood Demolition, Inc, for the manner, means and melhods of the detnolilion work being performed at the time of the incident by Angel Garcia.

REOUE§T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6Q; All correspondence between defendants In this case and any insUll!nce company, regarding coverage for personal ln]ury or death claims, before the incident in question.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks Information protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules l!l2.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdurc; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects os to "all correspondence'.' to the extent such req1iest constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition," Loflin v, Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: AU corrcspondencc between defendants in this case and any insurance company, regarding covera~e for personal injury or death claims, after the incidenl in question.

Rli;SPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

DEFENDANT J. T, VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DID/A VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION'S OQJJiCTIONSAND llE8PONSE8 TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIV!DUALL\i AND AS REPRMENl'A TIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA •s FIR.<rr REQUF.sT FOR PRODUCTION P. I t9

Defendant further objects all to "all correspondence" to the extent such request constitutes an impennlssible "fishing expedition," Loftin v. Martin, 176 S.W.2d l4S, !48 (Tex. 1989).

REOUE§T FORPRODUCTION NO. 62• All correspondence between defendants in this case regarding the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Dcfertdlltlt objects to this requcstas vague, overly broad as to tinie and scope, and, as wri~n. seeks infonnatlon protected by the anomey-client I attol1ley work product /joint defense privlleges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdurc; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to "all correspondence" to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d145, 148 (t'ex. 1989).

Subject to and wiU1ou1 waving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is not in possession of any discoverable documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63; All insurance reports regardi11g the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, s.eeks information protected by the attomey'client /attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Proodure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition;" Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W;2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989).

Subject to and without waving the aforementioned objections, Defendani Is not in possession of any discoverable documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64; All documents relied up [sic) or reviewed by any person, entity or insnrer, to.generate a report regarding the Incident in question.

RF.BPONSE1 Defendant qbjects to this request as vague, overly brood as to time and scope, a1id, as written, seeks infonnation protected by the attorney-client/ attorney work product !joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to ''all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition.'' Loftin v. Martin, 176 S.W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989).

DEFENDANT J. T, VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC,D/D/A VAUGJ!N CONS'fRUCTION•S ODJEC'l'FONS Al'ID RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTHE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S lllRST RE()\lliST FOR PRODUCTION P.120

REQUEST FOR PRODU$=TION NO, 6S; All permits obtained for the demolition work being perfonned as a part of the Kyle Field renovatio.n project.

RESPONSE: None in this Dcfendftlit's posession.

:--::~t~an~ Ml HAEL A. LER State Bar No. 14 l006SO mmiller@tmltbc.com

Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 1950 Dallas, Teitas 75219 (469) 916-2552 telephone (469) 916-2555 facsimile

COUNSEL FOR DI!:FENDANT J, T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DIBIA VAUGHN CONSTRUCTJON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has b~en forwarded to all counsel of record as reflected below on this :w•h day of April 2014:

Viq Cet!lfltd. Mqil. RRR Jnson A. Gibson Andrew Smith Clifford D. Peel, II The Gibson Law Finn 111e Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite 2050 Houston, Texas 77002 Plaintiffs' Counsel

M ClfAEL A. Mll,l,ER

ll~FENDANT.J. T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DID/A VAUGHN CON$'tRUCTION'S OBJECTIONS ANO RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF!LIOSf:FINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRRSENTATIVli: OF THE ESTA TE OF ANGliL GARCIA'S FIRST ltEQUEST FOR PRODOC.Tl ON P. I21

i-------------------- 1

I ~ I i CAUSE NO. 2013-76550 ~ ij JOSEFINA GARCIA, Indlvldunlly nnd as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT "., Heir to !he Esl!lte of ANGEL GARCIA § ~ (Deceased); and ORBELINDA HERltER;\, § As Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and § BRIAN GARCIA (Minors), § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, § J.T. VAUGHNCONSTRUCTION,.LLC, § dlb/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, § MANl{ATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., lNC., § MANHATTANIVAUGHN,JVF', § TEXAS CURB CUT, INC., TEXAS CUTTING § & CORING GROUP, INC., and LINDAMOOD § DEMOLITION, INC., § § Defendants. § 80TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAIN'l'IFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDMDUALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Plaintiffs, Josephina Garcia, Individually nnd as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia, by and through her counsel of record Jason A. Gibson, Andrew Smith, Clifford D. Peel II of The Gibson. Low Firm, 2050 The Ly1•lc Centre, 440 Louisiana In Uo11S(on, Texas 77002.

Defendant Manhattan Construction Company (hereinafter "Manhattan" or

"Defendant") serves {ts Objections 1md Responses to Plaintiffs, Josephina Garcia,

Individually 1md as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia First Requests for Production,

pursuant to Rules 192, 193 and 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. EXHIBIT f 'l-, 1--.11D_,_. ': ... DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONsF.S TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, lNDivlDUALLV AND AS RJ;;PRESENTATIVE OFTllE ESTATE 01' ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.11

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESP(,)NSES TO PLAINTIFF;S FIRST REOI!EST FOR PRQDUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.1: AU rccor<)s <)ocumenting Angel Garcia's employment with Manhattan Construotion, inchiding but not limited to personnel files, work hist~ry. time logs, payment records and training logs.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request, as written, as overly broad and Jacks the degree of speclticlty required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and witho1,1t waiving the foregoing objections, none as Angel Garcia is not employed by Manhattan Construction Company.

REOUEST FOR PRODVCTWN NO. 2; All contracts or other written agreements entered between Manhattan Construction, Texas A & M or any defendant in this oase, related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPQNSE: Defendant objects to this request, as written. as overly broad as to time and scQpe, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Tex.as Rules of Civil Procedure and potentially seeks information not re!ISonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the aforeme11tloned objections, otherwise see production.

REOOJl:ST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All correspondence between Manhattan Construction, Texas A & M or l\llY other entity or defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field :~ renovation project, including ·but not limited to correspondence relate(! to contracts or '1 agrei:ments for the performance of activities related to construction, construction management, accident prevention or safety at the worksite.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request, as written, as overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Tei<as Rules of Clvil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCJION NO. 4: All documents related to, documenting or describing the scope of work to be perfonned by Manhattan Construction.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure.

Subject to and without waivh1g the aforementioned objections, see production.

DEFEN.DANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCflON COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFiNA GARCIA, INiiIVIDUALLY ANI) AS RllPRESENTA'f:IVE OF THE ESTATE Ol'ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRllT REQUEST VOR PRODUCTION P. l 2

BEOQEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents related 10 or discussing demolition work, purchase of materials, supplies, provision of equipment, provision of lab-Or, safety, insurance and workers' compensation,. as it applies to any defendant in this oase.

RESPONSJj): Defeodant objects to this request M vag\(e, ovei:ly broad as to time aod scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks information neither relevant oor reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to .the exlent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d 145, 148 (tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obje<ltions, see produclion, if any

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6; All documenl8 and correspondence related to the progress of the Kyle Field renovation proje<:t between or among the parties, includjng Manhattan Construction, Lindamood, or any other party with responsibilities on the Kyle Field renovation project site.

RESPON§E: Defendanl objects to this request ns vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc.e.

Detendant further objects to "all documents and correspondence" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving Che foregoing objections, see production, lfany.

REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 1: All notes and dacumenls in possession of Manhattan Construction regarding inspections performed by OSHA on the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPON§E: Defendant objects to Ibis request Is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree 1>f speclncity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent such request seeks information that is protected by the attomey- client I attorney work product privileges. See 192.5, 'fexas llules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJl;CTIONS AND Rli:SPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JoSEFINf. GARCIA, IND.IVIDUALL\I AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE £STATE oF ANGEL GARCIA'S Fmsr REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.13

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is not in possession of discoverable docwnents responsive io this request.

RE0UE8T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8; All documents related to inspections done on the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to the area where Angel Garcia was working and killed.

RE§PONS]i: Defendant objects to this request Is vague and overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree ohpecificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the. extent the request seeks information protected by the work product and attorney client privilege.

Defendant lilnher objects t9 "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impemlissible "fishing expedition.• Loftin v. Martin, 776 $;W.2d 14$, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FORPRODUCTION NO, 9: All minutes of meetings (9r other similar document) at which planning, rlSk management, engineering, demolition or snfety was discussed.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to. this request is vague and overly broad 11$· .to time and scope, and locks the deg)'ee of specificity required under the Te11:as Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objeets to lhis request cm the basis that it seeks production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to "all minutes" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subjec! to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FOR PlWDUCTIQN NO. 10; All recordings or videos of the work being performed on the Kyle Field renovation project, including audio or video fuotage of the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Defendant objeclli to this request as overly broad as to time and scope. Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, none.

B.EOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. l!: All documents identifying safety issues or concerns as lt penains to the Kyle Field renovation, including but.not limited to the demolition prooess and the work being perfonned by Angel Garcia and his e1nployer.

DEPENDANT MANHA'l't'AN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND R&SPONSES TO l'LAINTIFFS JOSEPINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIV& OF Tl!E ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.14

MfiPONSE: Defendant objects to this request is V11gue and overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules. of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it seeks production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ohdmlssible cvidenc.e in this case.

Defendant further objects to ''all documents to the extent $llllh request constitutes an im)lennlsslble "fishing expedition." LC>ftln v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

R£0UEST FOR PRODUGI:ION NO. Ur All documents mentioning actions taken by 1j defend&11ts to correct 1111y safety issues that were identified, us it pertains to the Kyle Field ~ renovation project. l RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request is vague and overly broad as to time and i scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Ri1les of Civil Procedure. '~ Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it seeks production of documentation 't' that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead· to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" 10 the extent such request constitutes an impermi~ible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d t4S,)48 (Tex. 1989) and seeks lnfomtation protected under Rule 407 of the TRE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. (3: All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited. to blue prints, specifications, structural genenil notes and structural plan sheets, defining demolition work to be performed on the existing notheast pedestrian ramp.

RESPONSE; befendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope; 1111d lacks the degree ofspecificity required .under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and is therefore harassing.

Defendant further objects to "all documents and plans" as being·vague, and also to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v; Martin, 776 S:W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defondant also objects to this Request to the extent said request seeks the production of dcouments and things that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

DEFENDANT MA.NHATI'AN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSF.STO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INJ)IVIDUALLV AND AS REPR~Sl!NTATIVE OF nm ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.15

REOPEST FOR fR(jDUCTION NO. 14: All documents including specifications, general conditions and supplemental conditions generated by any party or other entity, descri\lil1g the illOpe of work and/or services (specifically including safety and demolition) to be done on lhe Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the b11Sis that it is overly broad as to time wid scope, and lacks the degree ofspeCiticity required under lhe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further ol:ijects lo "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impennlssible "fishing eKpedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant ulso objects to ilils Request lo the extent said request seeks the produetiort of dcouments and things that nre. neither relevant nor re11Sanably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see produclion, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRQJ)UCTlON NO. 15: All con-espondence between Manhattan Construction and auy other entity involved with theKyle Field renovatlort project that mentions ..< job progress, scheduling, safety, hazarcl identification or job-site hazards• j II RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on tJ1e basis that it is multifarious, overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under. the Texas Rules of ·'' Civil Procedure. l Defendant further objects to "all documents" to lhe extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendru1t also objects lo !his Request to the extent said request seeks the production of dcownents and things that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

REQUEST FOR fRODUCTIQN NO. Ui; All documents related to the Kyle Field renovation project, which mention the methods and/or schedule of performance of demolition work to be performed by Manhattan Construction and its employees.

RESfONSEi Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the dcaree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v.Martin, 776.S.W . 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

tlEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS ANDRESPONSl!S TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANCEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. I 6

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQVEST FOR PRODUCIION NO. 17: All mfnntes of Pre-Construction meetings related to Kyle Field renovation project.

@SPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague in scope, overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degtee ofspecificlty required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" 10 the extent such request constjtuteB an impcnnissible ''fishing exp!ldition," Loftin v. Maiiin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). ' j 1j Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent said request seeh the prodlll)lion of l dcouments and things that are neither l'tllevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ~·' ! Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, none. j j' REQUEST FORPROl>UCTION NO. 18• All contracts issued by Manhattan Construction related to the sb'l!ctural demolition scope of work being performed on U1e northeast pedestrian ramp where lhesu'1ject incident occurred on 121312013.

RESPONSE; Responsive documents will be produced.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All correspondence and emails between Manhattan Conslruclion and Lindamood related to demolition activities and the Ryle Field renovation project.

RE§PONSE: Defendant objectHo this request on the grounds !hat this Request seeks the production of documents and things that ar~ protected by the joint·defense, attorney-client, and attomey work-product prlvileges. Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, none,

BEQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All documents reflecting responsibilities of Manhattan Construction emplo~es related to performance or oversight of demolition activities.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, andJacks tho degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to th& extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUctION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSKSTO PLAINTIFJ!S JoSEFINA OARCll\., INDIV.IDUALLY AND AS REPRESEN'fATtVE OF Tim £S1'ATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUl!ST FOR PRODUCTION P.17

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the demolition of the wells nnd beams in question were the responsibility of Lindamood and their employees.

REOUESJ: F9R PRODUCTION NO, 21; All documents which show engineeling surveys p<)rformcd by any party or entity, related to lhe demolltion of.structural concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.SSO(a).

RESPON8E1 Defendant objects to this request on the bash .that it is overly broad as to time and scQpe, and Jacks.the degree e>fspecificity required under the T~ Rules QfCivil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to th~ eKtent such request constitutes an impermissible 'fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waivina the foregoing objections, none.

REOVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. ll; All documentation and corresponden~.discussing engineering surveys !l<)rfonned b)' any party or entity, related to thlj demolition· of struct\lral concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR l 926.850(a).

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request oil the basis that it is overly broad as to time end scope, and lacks the degre<1·of specificity required underthe Texas Rules of Civil Pl'Ocedure.

Defendant further objects to.•\all docqmentation and correspondence" te> the extent such request oonstltutes.an impermissible ·•fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 23; All documents reflecting qualifications and training of persons who performed engineering surveys related to the demolition of structlil'al ooncrete on the Kyle Field renovation project, prusuent to OSHA 29 CPR 1926.SSO(a).

RESfONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to correctly quote OSHA 29 CFR 1926.85.0 (a) for the demolition in question.

·Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fuihingexpedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (rex. 1989).

DEl'l:Nl>ANT MANl!NM'AN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS Al'ID Rli:SrONSES 1'0 PL.uNTIFFS JOSEFIN,\ GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY ANtl AS REPRESEN1'ATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION p, 18

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents reflecting qualifications and tralninQ of persons WhQ operated equipment (machinery) for Llndl!fllood such as the Catel]lillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time of his death.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, aud lacks the degree of specificity required tinder the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects t9 "all documents" to the extent such request .constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Marlin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none. Otherwise, please refer to Defendant Lindamood's produP!lon herein.

REOUESI FQR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All documents, details or sketches addressing the specific dimensions and.scope of the demolition of the conarete•structure being worked on by Angel Garcia immediately prior to the subjectcollapse that led to Mr. Garcia's fall.

RESPONSE: Defendantobjects to this request 0n the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity requited under the T~xas Rules of Civil Procedure. l ! Pefendant ftlrthei· objecta to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an

l! impermissible "fishing e11pedition:" Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. !989).

Defendant further objects on grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and i things that are protecte\! by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work"Jlroduct privileges.

I Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none,

BEOVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26; All docwnents reflecting observations by any party or person regarding ihe nature ofspa!llng (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition a¢itivi~ prior to the time of the subject incident.

RESPONSE! Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks.the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989).

Defendant further objects on grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things tbat are protected by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents, none.

DEFENDANT MANllATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMP!INY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS RErRESENTATIVE OFTllE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR HODiJC'rlON . P. ! ?

REOl!EST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All documents showing tnspectiolls 1111d Inspection results of the demolition acitivities being perfonned on the northeast splral, pedestrian ramp.

RE$PONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objllets to "all documents" to !lie extent •uch request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant further objects on grounds tliat this Request seeks the production of documents and things tl1at are protected by the. joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

BEOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All Job Hazard Analyses, Joh Safety Analyses (JHA, JSA or s.imilar such formal process) done for the work activities of the demolition of structural concrete of the..northeast pedestrian ramp, including the specific work being done by Angel Gacia.

RE§PONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the bllllis that it is ovedy broad as to lime and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objeCls on the grounds that this request seeks the prodi1ction of documents and things thaiare no~ relevant to the subject matter of thla lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and.without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

!!EOUEST FOR PRODJK:TION NO. 29; All d.ocuments and plans for temporary shoring to be utilized during the demolition work of structural concrete of the northeast pedestrian ramp, al the location oftbe subject incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope.potentially misleadJng as written, and lacks the degree of specific! ty required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents and plans" to the extent such request constitutes an impennisslble ''fishing oxped!tion." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRllCTION COMPANY'S O~ECTIONS AND l;UilSPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST IU!QUF.sT FOR PRODUCTION P. 11& •

@QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All correspondence, docwnents and emails between Manhattan Constl'Uetion (or any other parly or entity) and J:,indamood, reflecting the designation of • Competeni Person proposed by Lindamood for the Kyle Field renovation project, as required by OSHA regulations 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2).

RESPQNSE: None.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTJON NO. 31: All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safety-related rules and l'equirements for all work to be perfotmed within the scope of the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basfs that it is ovedy broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant farther objects to the tenns "safety management," , "accident pre~ntion programs," "safety related rules," and "requirertlents for all work to be performed" as those terms and phrases are not defined and, as written, are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evl!lence In this case.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Marlin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989).

Subjectto and withoutwaivinglhc foregoing objections, see prod\lction.

REOUESI FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32; All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safety-related rules, etc. related to the Kyte Field rehovalion project, created or adopted by Manhattan Construction prior to the incident which were required by the authority of Manhattan Construction to be utilized by subcontractors 01• others on the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE; Defend.~nt objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under. the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the terms "safety management," , "accident prevention programs," "safety related rules," an.d ''etc." as. those terms ang p)lrases are not defined and, as writtl)n, are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this ~uest, 8S written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this c.ase.

Defendant further objects to thi$ request to the extent such request ~onstllutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

DEFENDANT MANHATl'.ul CONSTRUCTION COMl'ANV'S OBJEcTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAJNTIFF& JOSEFINA Gi\llCJA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OP l'RE ESTATE OF ANGELCARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.111

RE0UEST FOR Pl,!ODUCTIQN NQ, 33: All published requirements of any federal, state or local agency or any related standard of any national consensus standard promulgating organll!ation, addressing requirements or recommendations for accident p,rev<:ntion and for the protection of employees or others on site with which Manhattan Construction acknowledges they or others under the authority of Manhattan Construction were to comply or operate on the Kyle Field renovation project on the date ofthe incident

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it seeks production of documentation that is publically available and equally available to the requesting Plll1Y· Defend1111t further objects to thb request on the basis that it seeks 4ocuments tha.t is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence· in this case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregolng objections, to the extent Defendant unde.rstands the request, Defendant would refer Plaintiftll to the Manhaitau I Vaughn Project Site Specific Safety Plan for the Kyle Field Stadium Redevelopment and the Subcontract between Manhattan I Vaughn and the Defendant subcontractors.

REOUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 341 All documents reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan Construction or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site d$scribing the incident In question.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Rule 194 requcsis and, therefore, overly broad and outside the permissible scope of the rules pursuant to Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

REQUEST Ji'OR PRODUCTION NO. 35; All docuitients reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan Construction or any Qther party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the events leading uup to the subjc:ct incident, orthe incident itself.

RESPONSE! Defendant objects to this reC(llllSt to the extent it is duplicative of Rule 194 requests and, therefore, overly broad and outside the permissible scope of the rules pursuant to Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

REOlJEST FORPRODUCTION NO. 36; .· AU initial-employment safety orientation, any specific safety management or accident prevention training or sciminars provided Manhattan Construction or by any party, to employees of any contractor or subcontractor working on !he Kyle Field renovation project.

RE§PQN~E; Defendant objects to this request on.the basis that it is overly broal! as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the terms "safety management,", "accident prevention tmining or seminars," as those terms and phrllSes are not defined and, as written, are vague, overly broad, and 11nduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks

DEPENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S.OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLlllNTIF11!1 JOSEFINA GARCIA, INUIVIDUAl.t.Y ANll AS. REPRESENTATIVE OF TllE ESTATE 01' ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST l'OR PRODUCTION P. J 12

1 j information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of l admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an lmpennissible 'fishinjlexpedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REOUE§T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37; All periodic reports of the progress of work perfonned on the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPQNSE: Defendant objects this request as vague and overly broad as lo time and scope.

Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks the production ()f documents and things that are not relevant t() the subject matW of this la~uit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REOYEST FORPRODUCTIQN NO. 381 All reports. of accidents, on the job injuries or accident statistics related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE; l,)efondant objects to this req11est pn the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the work product and or attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request, as wi:ltten, .it seeks information U1at is neither relev~nl nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request . seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attomey- client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that itseeks the production of documents and things which are proprietary and confidential.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 391 All records or minutes of periodic safety "toolbox" or "tailgate" meetings performed on the job site, dating from the commencement of demolition activities through 12/31'2013, with employees and/or with other eontract()rs or subcontreac!ors on the Kyle Field renovation project, including records of the topics discussed and attendance lists.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this rl:'quest on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks infonnation that is neither relevant

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRllCT!ON COMPANY'S OBJECTIONSANDnllSPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GAR(:IA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRl!SEN'i'ATIVE OFTJll!: ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST RllQUF"lT FOR PRODUCTION P.1 ll

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 4iscovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitl\tes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 77.6 S.W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989).

Subject to artd without waiving the foregoit1g objections, responsive documents will be produced.

REQUEST 1ron l'RODUCTIQN NO. 40: AU reports of the incident made by aily party or person.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this n:quest on the basis that it is overly broad as to tbne and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity tequlred under the T~xas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent such request potentially seeks documenlll protected by the attorney/client and attomey-worl<•product privileges. See Rule 192.3, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Ruh~ 503, Texas Rules ofEvidonce.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent suoh request constitutes an Impermissible "fishing expedition;" Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

!!EOUEST FOllPRQDU<;TlON NO. 41: All schedules relati:d to tbe Kyle Field renovation project, listing milestone dates, depicting the. oroposed progress of construction, schedules reflecting proposed progress for demolition activities on the subject pedestrian ramp involved in the subject in.cldent.

RE§PONSE: Defendant objects to this request 011 the bl!sis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks th.; degree o( specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defundant l\1rther objects to this reque&t, as wtitten, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case,

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible 'fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 {Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production, if any.

REQUEST FOR fRODUCTION NO. 42: All job-site safety inspection reports (dated from the start of construction of the Kyle Field renovation projeet through 12/3112013).

RESPONSE! Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as wri1ten, it seeks information that is neither relevant

DEFENDANT !llANHATIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OllJECTloNS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLV AND AS REPRESEN1'ATIVE OF TOE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCll\'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. I 14

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishingeKpedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (l'ex.1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ, 431 All checklists utilized on the Kyle Field renovation project to assist in perfonnance of job-site safety inspection efforts, and specltlcally, all such checklists or documents which relate to or mention the subject of demolition, structural integrity or safety.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant norreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence· in this case,

Defendant further objects this request to the cittent such request constit11Jes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 ('rex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, nQrte known lo this Defendant.

RJWUEST FOR PRODU¢1ION NO· 44; All written procedures or 1-equirements for the pre-qualification and selection of contractors or subcontractors for the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to U1is request on the basis that ii is overly broad as to time and scope, aod lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further ol\jects to this request, as written, it seeks infonnation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in tllis case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2cl 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs the primary contract between Manhattan I Vaughn and the Board of Regents for the Texas A&M University System.

REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 451 All records of fonnal training given to 1111y worker or employee (assigned to the Kyle Field renovation project prior to the su~ect incident), related to the methods and techniques of demolition activities, in general, and specifically, demolition of concrete stmctures.

DEFENDANT MANHATI' AN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO.PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OP THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST l'OR PRODUCTION P. J 15

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on tlic basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition.'' Loftin v.Martln, 776 S.W:ld 145, 148 (Tex. 1~89).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Lindamood Demolition, Inc. for the means and methods of the demolition work being p.erfonned at the time of the incident, and ally ttail\il\g Lindamood provided to iis employees.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: All reports generated as a result of the subject incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks infonnation protecte<I by the attomey-client I attorney work product I joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to the eKlent such Interrogatory, as written, seeks infilnnation protected by the consulting ~pert privilege. See Rule! 92.3(e). Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all reports" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." LDftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to end without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to the Texas A&M Unlverlsty police investigation previously produced herein.

REOUE$T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: All OSHA reports or documents, including correspondence, related to. the subject incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, ail wri!ten, seeks information protected by the attorney-client /attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rt1les 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules ofEvidence.

Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in .ibis case.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, OSHA has not produced any report to Defendant's knowledge concemlng the incident In question.

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINl'IFPS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVlliUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. J 16

MOUESI FOR PRQ.DUCTIQN NO. 48: All documents related to. any investigation conducted as a result ofthe incident in question.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product ljoini defense privileges .. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503; Tex.as Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to the extent such request, us written, seeks information protected by die consulting expert privilege. See Rule 192.l(e), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waving the aforementioned objectio11$, and would refer Plaintiffs to documents previPusly produced herein.

REQUEST FOR. PRODUCIIQN NO. 42: Color copies of all photographs and videos taken Of the scene e1f the subject incident, before and after the inci(!ent.

RESPONSE: None. i l \ REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. SO: All piet11res and videos generated as a result of ' any investigation conducted after the incident in question.

RESPONSE; None.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Sl: All videos and footage taken by the ''construction cams" of the Kyle Field renovation project during the period ofl 111/2013 thmugh 12/31/2013.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the be.sis that it ls overly broad as to time and scope, and seeks infonnatlon that Is neither relevant nor .reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Subject to and without waiving die foregoing objections, none.

REOUES'f FOR)!RODUCTIQN NQ. 52; All documents of the overall site plan reflecting the scope and layout oftbe Kyle Field renovation pmjeot.

RESPONSE: Defel\dant objeots to this request qn the basis that it ls overly broa.d as to tlm~ and harassing in scope, and s~ks infonnatlon that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adtniss!ble evidence ln.1his case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will supplement the plans and specifications the for Project.

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTl~FS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRSTREQUESTFORPRODUCTION Pol 17

l ' REOYEST FOR, PRODUCTIQN NO. 531 All documents reflecting the name of each company or contractor present at the Kyle Field work site on the day Angel Oarcia was killed,

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad in scope nnd time, and requests production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evi.dencc in this case.

Defendant further objects as to "all doc1une111B" to the extent such ·request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none for this Defendant.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 541 All documents reflecting the names of every worker at the Kyle Fieldwork site on the day Angel Garcia was killed.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is .overly broad in scope, and requests production of doc.ume11tation thaJ Is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this Cl!Se.

Defendant further ol)jects as to "all document.~'; to the extent such request constitutes an lmpennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d l 4S, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing abjections, none for this Defendant.

REOUE§T FOR PRQPUCTlON NO. SS: All specifications, limit11.tions, maximum weight loads or wamingg provided with, or attached to, the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

BESPONSE: None ill this Defendant's posession.

REOUEST FOR PRQDUCTlON NO. 5§: The owner's and/or operator's manual for the Caterpillar Skid-Steer loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

BESPONSE: None In .this Defendant's posession.

R,EOUEST FOR PRODUCTlQN NO. 57; AU structural integrity !<>sting done on the concrete structure in the area where Angil! Garcia was working on the day of the incident in question. This includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

RESPONSE: None in this Defendant's posessioll.

DEFENDANT r.JANllA TTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AM> RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCli\•. INDIVIOUALLY AND AS Rl\PRES.ENTATIVE OF Tlllli l!STATJ> OF ANGEL GARCIA'S I'mST REQUE&T FOR PRODUCTION r.111

MOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. SR: All testing, engineering or otherwise, done on the concrete structure in the areo where Angel Garcia was working on the day of the incident in question. TI1is includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

RESPONSE; None known to exist or in this Defendant's posessioll, l j REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 59; AU work plans for the specific work Angel Garcia l wos perfurtning when he was killed.

RE8PONSE1 Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Lindamood Demolition, Inc. for the manner, means and methods of the demolition work being performed at the time of the incident by Angel Garcia.

MOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: All correspondence between defendants in this case and any insurance company, regarding coverage for personal injury or death claims, before the incident in question.

l' BESPON§E; Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as Jo time and scope, and, as written, seeks infonnatlon protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint 1 defense privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of ) Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to "all correspc>ndence" to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible •flsl;ingf!X)ledition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61; All correspondence· between defendants· in this cose and any insurance company, regarding coverage for personal injury or death claims, after the incident in. question.

ftESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, geks information protected by the,attomey-client I attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules ofCivil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules .of Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to "all correspondence" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

ftEOUEST FOR PRQPYCTION NO. 62: All correspondence between defendants in this oase regarding the incident in question.

DEFENllANT l\IANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE i>FTHE ESTATE.OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQ!lllST FQR PRODUCTION P.119

RESPONSE: Defendantobjects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attorney-client/attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to "all correspondence" to the extent .such request constitutes an impermissible ''fishing expedition;" Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tei<. 1989).

Subject to and without wav.ing the aforementioned objections, Defendant Is not in possession of any discoverable documents;

BEOUES'.f FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: All insurance repo11S regarding the incident in question.

RE8PON§E: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks Information protected by the attorney-client f attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d145, 148 (Te~. 1989).

Subject to and without waving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is not in possession of any discoverable documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: All documents relied up [sio] or reviewed by any person, entity or insurer, to. generate a report regarding the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attomey·cliont f attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence,

Defendant further objects as to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (fox. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: All permits obtained for the demolition work being performed as a part of the Kyle Field renovation project.

RE§PONSE: Non.e In this Defendant's posession.

DEFENDANT MANHATT AN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSE PINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF nm ESTATE OF ANGli:L OARCl A'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.] 20

',, l l ~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQN NO. 66: All waivers of conflict signed, allowing representation of all Defendants by one Jaw finn. li RESPONSE! Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that It seeks the production of documents and things that are confidential, proprietary and protected by the joint-defense privilege.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relev1111t to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

[i\lr~ MICHAEL A. MILLI£R State Bar No. 14100650 mmmer@tmlfpc.com

Turtle Creek Cen.tre 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste.1950 Dallas, Texl'IS 75219 (469) 916-2552 telephone (469) 916-2555 facsimile

COUNSEL FOllD.EFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

\ j

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANV•S OBJl!:CTIONS ANDRESPONSF.S TO PLAINTIFFS JOS&FINll GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTHEEST~T&OF ANGKLGARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.121

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instl'Ument has been forwarded to all counsel of record as reflected below on this JO'" day of April 2014: Viq Certlfled MW/, llRB Jason A. Gibson Andrew Smith Clifford D. Peel, 11 The Olbson Law Finn The Lyric Centre

\~~ff 440 Louisiana, Suite 2050 Houston, Texas 77002 Plai11tiffe' Counsel

MMHAELA. Mil..LER

DtFENDANT MANHAITAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANV'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTAl'E OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUC.'TION P, I 22

CA.USE NO. 2013·76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, lndivldunlly and as § IN TllE DJSTRICT COURT Heir to tlte Estate of ANGEL GARCIA § (Deceased); nnd ORBELINDA Hli:RRERA, § As Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA and § BRIAN GARCIA (Minors), § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § dfb/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, § MANHATIAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., § MANUATIAN I VAUGHN,JVP, § TEXAS CURB CUT, INC., TEXAS CUTTING § & CORING GROUP, INC., and LINDAMOOD § DEMOLmON, JNC,, § § Defendants. § 80TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MANHATIAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S. OBIECfIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INJ)IVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE.ESTATE. OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Plaintiffs, Josephina Garcia, Iodlvidnally and as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia, by and through her counsel of record J'nson ~· Gibson, Andr~ Smith, Clifford D. Peel U of The Gibson Law Ffrm, 2050 The Lyric Centre, 440 Louisiana in Houston, Texas 77002.

Defendant Manhattan I Vaµghn, a Joint Venture (hereinafter "Manhattan I Vaughn" or "Defendant") serves its Objections and Responses to P,Jaintlffs, Josephina

Garcia, Individually and as Heir to the Esbl.te of Angel Garcia First Requests for

Production, pursuant to Rules 192, 193 and 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Proccdure~·im-~!!!!!I! EXH IT I t DEFENDANT MANHATIAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OB.JECTIONS AND.RESPONSES TO PLAINnFFs JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTIJE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIIIST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION I'.! I

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FmST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REOVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 1: All records documenting Angel Garcia's employment with Manhattan I Vaughit, including b111 not llmlted to personnel tiles, work history, time logs, payment records and tmining logs.

RE§PON§E1 Defendant objects to this request, as writtcu, as overly broad and lacks the degree of specificity required under lhe Texas Rules of Civi!Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objectious, none as Angel Garcia was not employed by Manhattan I Vaughn.

BEQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All contracts or other wdtten agreements entered between Manhattan I Vaughn, Texas A & M or any defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field renovation project

RESPON§E: Defendant objects to this request, as written, as overly broad as to time and sc:ope, ai\d lacks the degree of specificity required under tbeTeldls Rules of Civil Pi'ocedur"'

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, see production.

REOPEST FOR PRQDUCTlON NO. 3: All c:Orrespondence between Manhllttan I Vaughn, Texas A & M or any other entity or defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field renovation project, including but notlimited to correspondence related to contracts or agreements for the perfoananoe of activities related to construction, c0nstrucilon management, accident prevention or safety at lhe works.ite.

BESPONSE: . Defendant objects to this request, as written, as overly broad as to lime and scope, and lacks lhe degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without Waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents related to, documenting or describing the scope of work to be performed by Manhattan I Vaughn for the Kyle Field renovation project.

BESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly bread as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civ'il Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, see production.

DEFENDANT MANN/!.TTAN JVAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OPJECTIONS AND RESPONSF.S TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRollUCTION P. I 2

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents related to or discussing demolition work, purchase of materials, supplies, provision of equipment; . provision of labor, safety, insurance anti workers' compensation, as it applies to any defendant in this Clise.

RESPONSE: O.efendant objeets to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objeets to the extent the request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendant further objects to ''all docume1tts" to the extent su6h request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REOUESI FOR PRODUCTIQN NO. 61 All documents and correspondence related to the progress of the Kyle Field renovation project between or among the parties, including Manhattsn J I Vaughn, Lindamood, or any other party with responsibilities on the Kyle Field renovation project site. l I RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vAgue, overly broad as to time and scope,

I and lacks the degree of specificity required under the TeKas Rules of CiVil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks infomwtion neither relevant nor reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery .ohdmissible evidence.

D~fendant further objects to "all documents and correspondence" to the ei<tent such request co.nstitutes an impennissible "ftshing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and Without waMngtbe foregoing objections, see production.

REOUESI FOR PRQDUCTIQ~ NO. 71 All notes and documents ht possession of Manhattan I Vaughn regarding inspections performed by OSHA on the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of speeiflcity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent such request seeks information that is protected by the attorney· client I attorney work product privileges. See 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule SQ3, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the ,extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S, W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is not in posses•lon of

DEFENDANT MANDA'!'l'AN IVAUonN, AJOINT VEN'fl!RE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESpONSl!S TO PLl\INTlFFS JOSEFINA GARCtA, INl>lVlDUALLY AND AS REPRl!5ENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE or ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST lll!QUEST J!OR PltODVCTION P.13

discoverable docwnents responsive to this request.

REOUEST FOR PRODVCTION NQ. 8; All documents related to inspections done on the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to the area where Angel Garcia was working and killed. J il RESPONSE• Defendant objects to this request is vague and overly broad as to time and l scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Pwcedure. .1 Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks infonnatlon protected by the work product and attorney client privilege. l ' Defendant further objects to "ail documents" to the eicwnt sueb iequest constitutes an Impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W;2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PROPUCTION NO. 9; AU minutes of meetings (or other similar document) at which planning, risk management, engineering, demolition or safeiy was discllssed.

I j RESPONSE; Defendant obj¢ets to this re.quest is yagiio nnd overly brood as 10 time and s.cope, and lacks the degree of specificity required tinder the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it seeks production of documentation l that is neitber relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to "all minutes" to the extenl such request constitutes an jmpennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, l48{Tex.19$9).

Subject lo and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

rutOUE8T FOBPRODUCTION NO. lOJ All recordings or videos of the work being performed on the Kyle Field renovation project, including audio or video fuotage of the incident in question. .

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to tl1is request as overly broad as to time and scope.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, see production.

REQUEST FORPRQDUCTION NO. 11; Ail documents 14entifyins safely issues or concems es it pertains to tile Kyle Flelcj renovation, i11cluding but not limited lo the demol.ition process and the WDrk being perfonned by Angel Garcia and his employer.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request is vague and overly broad as lo time and

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT \IENTURE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF!I JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P, 14

I i l

i scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the b.asis that it seelcs production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to "all documents to the extent SJJCh request constitutes an impomilssible 'fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (fex. 1989). "!: l l Subject .to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production. •': REOQEST FOR PRODUCTtON NO. 12: All documents mentioning actimis taken by defendants to c-0rrcct any safety issues that were identified, as it pertains to the Kyle Field ! renovation project. j RESPONSE; Defendant obj eels to this request is vague and overly broad as to time and :i scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it seeks production of documentation that is nei).her relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extant such .request constitutes an impomnissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2!1 i4S, 148. (Tex. 1989) and seeks information protected under Rule 407 of the TRE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13; All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited lo blue prints, specifications, structural general notes and structural plan sheets, defining demolition work to be performed on the existing noiheast pedestrian ramp.

RE§PONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lack$ the degree ()f specificity req11ired under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and is therefore harassing.

Defendant further objects to •au documents and plans" as being vague, and also to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant also objects to this Request lo the extent said request seeks the production of dcouments and things that Ufe neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

R,EOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents Including specifications, general

DEFENDANT MANHATrAN I VAUGHN, /\JOINT VENTURE'& OJIJECTtONS AND RESPONSF.S TO PLAINTWFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTA'fE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOil PRODUCTION P. I S

I conditions and supplemental conditions generated by any party or other entity, describing the I scope Qf work and/or services (specifically including safety and demolition) to be done on tlte i Kyle Field renovation project.

I RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time I and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objeCls to "all documents" to the extent such teqUest constitutes an Impermissible "fishing expedition." Lo!\in v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant also objeCls to this Request to the extent said requt:St seeks the production of dcouments and things that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subjeci to and wilhoutwalving the foregoing objections, see production.

REOUESTFOR PRODUCTION N0.15: All correspolldence between Manhattan I Vaughn and any other entity involved with the Kyle Pield re11ovaiion project that mentions job progress, scheduling, safety, hazard identification or job·site hazards.

RESPONSlii: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that It is mullifarious, overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree ofspeeificity required under lhe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Marlin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent said requeit seeks the producUon of dcouments and things that are neither relevant nor reasonably calc\llnted to lead to the discovery '' of admissible evidence. i" Subject to and without waiving the.foregoing objections, see production.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All documents related to the Kyle Field renovation project, which menUon the methods and/or schedule of performance of demolition work to be perfonned by Manhattan I Vaughn and its employees.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and soope, and lacks the degtec of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

DEFENDANT MANllATTAN /VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDlVIDOt\LLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF mE ESTATE OF ANGE& GARCIA'S PffiST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. / 6

REOijEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.17:. All minutes of Pre-Construction meetings related to Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendalll objects to this request on the basfs that it is vague in scope, overly broad as to tirne and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pefendant further· objects to "all .documents" to .the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing .expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 14S, I48 (Tex. t 989), .

Defendant also objects to tltis Request to the extent ~aid request seeks the production. of dcouments and things thatare neither relevant nor reasonably calcl.tlated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregqing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCIION NO. 18: All contracts issued by Manhattan I Vaµghn relate~ to the structural demolition scope. of work being perforl1!ed on the northeast pedestrian ramp where the subject ineldent occurred on 1213/2013.

RESPONSE: Responsive documents will be produced.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All correspcndence and emails between Manhattan I Vaughn a11d Lind.am0od related to demolition activities and the Kyle Field renovauon project.

REgPONSJ1.: Defendant objects to this reqµest on the grounds that this Request seeks the producti<m of do.cuments .and things that are protected by the Joj11t-defense, attomey•client, and attorney work-product ptivlleges.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, responsive documents will. be produced.

R.EOQEST FOR ffiODVCTION NO, 20; .Alt documents reflecting responsibilities of Manhattan !Vaughn employeearelated to perfonnance or oversightof demolition activities.

RESl'ONSF,, Dere@ant objects t9 this request on.the basis that it is overly bread !IS to time and.scope, and lacks inc degree Qfspecificity required und~r the Tel!!lS Rµles of Civil Procedure.

Defendant furilwr objects to "~ll documents" to the extent such ·request constitutes an

DEFENDANT MANHkn'AN IVAUGHN, AJOINT VEN1'llRE'S ODJEC1'IONS AND RESOONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSl\FtNA (.)ARCIA, INDIV!QUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTHE ESTATE (.)F /\NGEL GARCIA'$ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.17

impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d J4S, 148 (Tex. 1989),

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the demolition of the walls and bel!Dls in question were the responsibility of Lindamood and their employef.ls.

ilEOUEST FORPRODUCTIQN NO· 21; All documents which show engineering surveys perfonned by any party or entity, related to tbe demolition. of structural concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, .pursu11nt lo OSHA 29 CFR 1926.SSO(a).

RESPONSE: . . . Defendant objects to this request on. the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of ~pecificity required under the Texas Rules.of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further· objects to "all dooumertts'; to the eXtent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FOR PRODVCTION NO. 22; All documentation and correspondence discussing engineering surveys perfunned by any party or enllty, related t.o the demolition of structural concrete fat the Kyle Field renovation projebt, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.SSO(a).

RESPQN§E: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it i.s overly broad as to time and scope, end lacks the degree of specificity required under the 1exas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documentation and correspondence" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none.

REQUEST FORPRQDUCTION NO. 23• All documents reflecting qualifications and training of persons who perfonned engineering surveys related to the demolition of stn1ctural concrete on the Kyle Field renovation project, prusuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.SSO(a).

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly .broad as to lime and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Protedure and fails to correctly quote OSHA 29 CFR 1926.SSO (a) for the demolition in question.

Defendant further objects to "all documentsn to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

BEOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO· 24: All documents reflecting qualifications and

DEPENDANT MANHATIAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAJN11FFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF TllE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA.'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PROl>UCTION P. ( 8

training of persons who operated equipment (machinery) for Lindamood such as the Caterpillar Skid.Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time of.his death.

RESPON§E: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that.it IS overly broad as to time and scope, and 1.acks the degree of specificity requlred under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects . to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v'. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. i989).

Subject to and without. wa.lvlJ!g the foregoing objections, see production. Otherwise, please refer to Defendant Lindamood's production herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Alldocuments, details or sketches addressing the speeiflc dimensions and scope of the demolition of the concrete structure being worked on by Angel Garci.a immediately prior to the subject collapse that led to Mr. Garcia's fall.

R)i;SfONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree Of Specificity required under !he Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant. further objects to "all d<!c1.1ments" to the ~tent such 11;qucst constitutes an impermissible"fishingexpedilion." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W,2d 145, !48 ('!'ex. 1989).

Defendant further objects on grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attoniey·client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents, if any, will be produced.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26; All doci1ments reflecting observations by any party 9r person regarding the nature of spt!lling (or failure) of existing concrete members of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition acitivites prior to the time of the subject incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly brood as to time and scope, and lacks the degree ofspecificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedilion." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 14S, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Defendantfurther objects on grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the Joint,defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges.

DEFENOANT MANHA'ITAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTlJRE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSl!S TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OP THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION . Pd 9

Subject to and without waiving tile foregoing objections, responsive documents, if any, will be produced.

REQUEST FOR l>RODUCTION NO. l?; All documents showing inspections and inspection results of the demolition acitlvities being performed on the northeast spiral, pedestrian ramp.

RESPONSE: . Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly bro~d as to t.ime nnd scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further objects to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expeditf!m." Loftin v. Martin, 776S.W.2d145; 148 (Tex. 1989)~

Defendant further objects on grounds that this Request seeks the producti011 of docurnellls and things that aro protected by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Snbjecl to and without waiving the foregoing objections, ' responsive documents . will be produced.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28; All Job Hamrd Analysea, Job Safety Analyses (JHA, JSA or similar such formal process) done for 1he work activities of the demolition of structural concrete of the northeast pedestrian ramp, including the specific work being done by Angel Gacia.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the biWs that il is overly broad as to time and scope, and locks the degree ofspeclficity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant further obj eets on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and thlngs that arc not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not r<:11Sonably calculated to lead to the discnvery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive do.cuments will be produced.

l®UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All documents Md plans for tempo~ary shoring to be utilized during the demolition work of $tructural concrete of the no1thenst pedestrian 1'amp, at the location of the subject incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope,potentially misleading as written, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects jo "all documents a11d plans" to the extent such request constitutes an

DEFENDANT l\fANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTUM'S 011.JECTIONSAND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINAGARCIA, INDIVIDUALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTHE l!STATE OP ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST R'EQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P.1 IU

impermissible "fishing expedition.'' Loftin v.Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

BEOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30; All correspondence, documents and emails between Manhattan I Vaughn (or any other party or entity) and Lindamood, reflecting the designation of a Competent Person proposed by Lindamood for the Kyle Field renovation project, as required by OSHA regulations 29 CFR 1926.20(b){2).

RESPON8E; See production.

RlWU)i;ST FOR PROD\JytION NO. 311 AU safety management or accident prevention programs, poliole8, manuals, safety-related rules and requirements for all work to be performed wititin the scope of the Kyle Field renovation project,

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and St»P•.• and lacks the degree of specificity required \lllder the Tei.:as Rules of Clvil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the te1ms "safety management," , "accident prevention programs," "safety related rules," and "requirements for all work to be perfonned" as those terms and phrases are not defined and, as wrltteri, are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdellBome. Defendant further objects lei .this request, as written, it seeks information thiit is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead.to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent such request oonstituteS an impennlssible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, manuals, safety-related tules, etc, related to the Kyle Field renovation project, created or adopte\! by Manhattan IVaughn prior to the Incident which were reqllired by the authority of Manhattan I Vaughn to be utiUzt;d by subcontractors or.others on the Kyle Field renovation project.

BESPONSE: Defendant objects.to this request on the ha.sis. that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the terms "slifety management," , "accident prevention programs," "safety related rules," and "etc." as those terms and phrases are not defined and, as written, are vague, ove1·ly b1"0ad, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request, as wiitten, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant fUrther objeetno this request to .the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishii1g expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W,2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN IfauGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1'0 PLAINTWFS JOSEFINA QARC!A, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUctlON P.111

REOVEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 33: All publishe<I requlre1nents Qf any federal, state or local agency 01· any relate<! standard of any, nali<1nal consensus standard promulgating organization, addressing requirements or recommendations for accident prevention and for the protection of employees or others on site With whi.ch Manhattan I Vaughn acknowledges they or others under the authority of Manhattan I Vaughn were to comply pr 1>perate on the Kyle Field renovation project on the date of the incident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request O!J the basis that it seeks production of documentation. that is publically available and equally .11vailable to the requesting party. Defendant further objects to this request on the baais that It seeks documents that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admls.s.ible evidence in this ease.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to tbe extent Defendant undel!Jtands the request, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to the Manhattan I Vaughn Project Site Specific Safety Phm for the Kyle Field Stsdium Redevelopment and the Subcontract between Manhattan I Vauglm and the Defendant subcontractors.

RF..OUEST FORPRODUCTION NO. 34; All documents reflecting ·statements by employees of Manhattan I Vaughn or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the incident in questfon.

RESPQNSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it .is duplicative of Rule 194 requests and, therefore, overly b(l)ad and outside the permissible scope of the rules pul!Juant to Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Pro.cedure.

Il.EOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents reflecting statements by employees of Manhattan I Vaughn or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project site describing the events leadinguup to the subject incident, or the incident itself.

RESPONSE: Defenda11t objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Rule 194 requests and, therefore, overly broJll) and outside the permissible scope of the rules pul!Juant to Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All initinl·employmcnt safety orienlntion, any specific safety management or aocldent prevention training or seminars provided Manhattan I Vauglm or by any party, to employees ofany contractor or subcmittactor working on the Kyle Field rertovation project.

R,ESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request.on the basis that. it Is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under lhe Texas Rules of CMI Procedure. Defendant further objects to the terms "safety management," , "accident prevention training or

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAVGllN, A JOINT VENTUR&'SOBJECTIONS'AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GA!lCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S f'IRST REQtlllST FOR PRODUCTION P,f fl

seminars," as those tenns and phrases are not defined and, 118 written, are vague, overly broe4, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objeots to this request, as written, it seeks information that Is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant fur01er objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Msrtin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and .without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ.37: AU periodic reports of the progress of work performed on the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects thlsreqllest as vague and overly broad as to time and scope.

Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks the production of docwnents and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead. to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REOUESJ FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 3!l; All reports of accidents, on the job injuries or accident statisllcs related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this fequest on the basis that it is ovedy bro.ad as to time and sccpe, imd lacks !lie degree of specilldty required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the work product artd or attorney client privilege. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks infonnatlon that is neither relevant nor reasonably eitlculated to lead to the discovery of adm.issible evidence in .this case; Further objection is made .on th~ grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that 11re protecied b~ the joint-defense, mtomey- client, and attorney work-ptoductprlvlleges.

Defendant further objects to this Request to the eKtetlt that it seeks the production of documents and things which are proprietary and confidential.

Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

Rl!lOUEST FOR PllODUCTIQN NO. 39: All records or minutes of periodic safety "toolbox" or "tailgate" meetings performed on the job site, dating from the commencement of demolition activities through 12/31f2013, with employees andfor with other contractors or subcOntraactors on the Kyle Field renovation project, including records of the topics discussed and auondance lists.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly brdad as to time and·

DtFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAVGflN, AJOINT VENTURE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPliN$1iS TO PL/\Tl'/'l'IFFS JOS&Fll'IA G/\RCIA, INDIVlDV/\LLY AND. /\S REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATR OF ANGEi, GARCIA '8 Fmst REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION l'. J 13

scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required· under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects io this request, as wri~, it seeks infonnation that is neith.er relevant nor reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this. case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing ~dltion." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.4.d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989),

$upject to and without waiving the foiegoing objections, Defendant does rtot maintain trades! subcontractors tool box meeting minutes.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 40: All reports of the in~ldent made by any party or person.

RESPONSE: Defendantobjeets io this request on the basis that it is,()verly broad as to tirne and scope, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to the extent such request poterttially seeks document! protected by the attomeyfclient and attorney-work-product privileges. See .R11le 192.3, Texas Rules of Civil Proceduie, and Rule $03, Texas Rules onlvidence.

Defendant further abjects this request to the extent such request constitutes en impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. M~rtirt, 776 S, W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. l 989), ·

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production

BEQUEST FORPRODUQTION NO. 41: All schedules refotedto the Kyle Field renovation project, listing milestone dates, depicting the propgsed ptogreil~ of construction, schedules reflecting prop<lsed progress for demolition activities on the subject pedestrian ramp involved in the subject incident.

RESPONSE:· Defendant objects to this request Oh the basis that it is overly broad as to dtrte and scope,. and lacks the degree ofspecificity requir~ under tbe Texas Rules of Civil Proced!lre. De&ndant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks lnfonnation that is neither relevallt nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an i111pennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2-0. 145, I48 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to artd without waiving the foregoing objections, see production.

R.EOYEST Jl'OR PRODUCTION l'jO. 42; . All job-site safety inspection repdrts (dated frorn the stilrt of construction of the Kyle Field renovation. project through 12131/2013).

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this reqi.\est on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and

DRPENDANT MANHA1'TAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT \IEN1'0RE'S OBJECTIONS AND RllSPONSl!S TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS RilPHF.SENTATIVE OF THE ES'l'ATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST l'OR PRODUCTION P. jl4

scilpe, and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texllll Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to 1.his request, as written, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftinv. Martin, 776S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex.1989),

Subject to and withoutwaiviilg the foregoing objections, see production.

REOOJj:ST FORPRODUCTION NO. 43: All checklists ~!i.li~d ;on the Kyle Field renovation project to assist in perfonnance .of job,site safety inspection efforts, and spe<iifically, all such checklists or documents which relatr;>to or mention the subject of demolition, structural integrity or safety.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to lhi.s request on the basis that it is overly b~oad as to time and scope, and lacks the. degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as written, it seeks inf'Ormation that is neither relevant nor reasoJU!bly cali:ulaied to le.ail to the discovery of admissiple evidence in this case.

Defendrurt further objects this request to the extent such request aonstitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W;Zd 145, 148 ('l'~x. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, none kilown to this. Defendant;

MOUEST FORPRODUCTIQN NO. 44; All written procedures. or requirements. for the pre-qualification and sele<ltion of contractors or subcontractors for the Kyle Field renovation project

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope,. and Jacks the degree of specificity required 1mder tbe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defend\lllt further objects to this. re.quest, as wdtten, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects this request to the extent such request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 8'W.2d 145, 14li (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs the primary contract between Manhattan I Vaughn and the Board of Regents for the Texas A&M University System.

REOUESTFORPRODUCTIONNQ. 45: AU records of formal training given to any worker

PEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENT\!RE'S OBJECTION$ AND RESPONSES TO Pl,AINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY ANP AS REPRESENTATIVE OF1'11EES.1'ATEOF ANGEi. GARCIA'S FIRST Rl!QUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. ps

or employee (assigned to the Kyle Field renovation project prior to the subject Incident). related to the methods and techniques of demolition activities, in general, and specifically, demolition of concrete structures.

RESPONSE; Defendani objects lo this request on lhe b~sis that it Is overly broad as to time and scope, and lacks the degree of speoificity required 11nder ihe Texas Rull>$ of Civil Procedure. Defendant further objects to this request, as writ.ten, it seeks infunnatfon that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant l\n1her objects this request to the extettt such request constitutes an impennlssible ''fishing expedition." Loftin v; Martin, 776S.W.2d 14S, 148 (Tex.1989).

Subject to and withaut waiving the tbregoing objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Llndaml)Od Demolition, Inc. for the means and methods of the dfini.o.litlon work being perfonned at !he time of the incident, and any training Lindamood provided to its employees.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: All reports generated as a result of the subject iocident.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the aitorney-cllent / attomey work produe1 I joint defense privileges. Sue Rules 192.5, T<;xas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, TCcxas Rules of Evidenee.

Defendant further objects to the extent such Interrogatory,. as written, seeks Information protected by ihe consulting expert privilege. See Rule 192.~(e), Te:icas Rules of Civil !'l'Oeed\lfe.

Defendant further objects to ''ail reports'.' to the extent such request.c.onslitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, !48 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to the Texas A&M Unlveristy polloe investigation previously produced herein.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCflON NO. 47; Ail OSHA reports or documents, including correspondence, related to the S)lbject Incident.

RF.SPONSE: Defendant objects to ibis Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules · of Bvidence.

Defendant further objects to tltis request, as written, it seeks lnfonnation that is neiiher relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, OSHA has not produced any

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURl£'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOStllNA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY Al'{D AS lillPRESENTATIVEOl'THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FUtST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. ( l 6

repott to Defendant's knowledge concerning the incidentlnquestion.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Ng. 48; AU documents related to any investigation conducted as a result of the incident in .question.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attorney-client/ attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192,5, TeXl!s Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant futther.pbjects to the extent such re.quest, os written, seeks information protected by Ute consulting expeit privilege. See Rllle 192.3{e), Texas Rules pfCivii Proce.dure.

Subject to and without waving the aforeml:;ntioned objections, and would refer Plaintiffs to documents previously produced herein.

REQUESTFORPROPUC{JONN0.49; Color copies of all photographs and videos taken of the scene of the subject incident, before and after the incident

RESPONSE; Responsive docwrtcnts will be produced.

BEO!JEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: All pictures and videos generated as a result of any investig11tio11 C<>nducted after the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Responsive documents will be·produced.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: All videos and footage taken by the "construction cams" of the Kyle Field renovation project Qllring the period of! Ill/2013 thro11gh 12/31/2013.

RESPONSE: Defendant o~jects to this re.quest on the ba.sis thatit is overly broad as to time and scope, and seeks infonnati(J.n that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated ·lo lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Subject to and wilhOlll waiving the foregoing objections, responsive doc11J11ents will be produced for the date of the incident.

REQUEST FQR PRODUQIQN NQ; 52: Al.I documents of the overall site plan reflecting the scope and layout of the Kyle:Ffeld renovation project.

BESPONSE: Defendant objects !cl this request on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, .A ~OJl'jT VEl'lTUliE'S 011.JECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GAltCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTA'rtVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST Rli:QUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. 117

j l hara$ing in scope, and seeks information that Is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defenda!lt will supplement the plans and specifications the for Project.

RE0UEST FORPRODUCTIONNO. 53: All docUl!lents reflectlllg the name of each coinpany or contractor present at the Kyle Field work site on the dayAngel Garcia was killed.

RESl".ONSE; Defendant objects to tWs request oo the basis that it is overly broad in scope and time, and requests production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the dis(iOvcry of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects as to "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see production

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION'NO, ~4; All doc\llllents reflecting the names of every worker at the kyle Field work site on the day Angel Garcia was killecl.

RESPONSE; Defendantobjects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad in SC<1pe, and requests production of documentation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to tbe disC(Jvery of admissible evidence in this case.

Defendant further objects as to "all documents" to the extent &11ch request constitutes an impennissible "fishing expedition." 1.oftin v. Martin, 776 s.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waiving the furegoing objections, see production.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: All specifications, limitations, maximum weight loads or warnings provided with, or attached to, the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time. he was killed.

RESPONSE; None in this Defendant's posesslon.

&EOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: The owner's and/or operator's manual for the Caterpillar Skid-Steer loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed.

RESPQNSE: None in this Defendant's posession.

REOUE8T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: All structural integrity testing done on the

DEFENDANT MA.NllATl'AN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OllJECTIONS AND RESrONSES TO PLAINTIFl'S JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDlVillUALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTllE ESTATll OJI ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOi\ PnllDUCTION p, (18

concrete structure in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the day ofthe incident in queS!iorl; This includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

RESPONSE: None in this Defendant's posession.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCI'ION NO. 58: All testing, engineerit1g or othe(Wise, done on the concrete structure in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the day of the incident In question. This includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the incident in question occurred.

RESPON$E: None known to exist or in this Defendant's posession.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: All work plans for the specific work Angel Garcia was perfonning when he was killed.

RESPONSE: Defendant would refer Plaintiffs. to Lindamoad Demolition, Inc. for the •lllll1Jler, meanund methods of\he demolition work being perfomwd at the lime of the incident by Angel Garcia. ·

REOVESJ.FORP!l.ODUC'rlON NO. i'ith All correspondence. be.tween defendants in this cllse and any insurance company, regarding coverage for perscnal injury or death claims, before the incident in question. ·

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks infonT1ation protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defepse privileges. See Rules 192 ..5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant furth¢r objects as to "all 0orrespo.ndence" to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition:" Lo_ftin v.Martin, 776 S.W.2d.145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: All correspondence between defendants in this case and any insurance company, regarding coverage for personal injury or death claims, after the incident in question.

BESPONSE1 Defendant objecll! to this request as vague, overly broad asto time and scope, nnd, as written, seeks infonnation protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defense prlvileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to "all correspondence" to the ex~nt such request constitutes on

DEFEi'II>ANT MANllATTAN jVAUGJiN, A JOIN'i' VENTURE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESl'QNSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA,lNDIVUlU/\LLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OFTHJ!: ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PROJ)UCTION P.1 t9

impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W:2d 145, 148 (l'eK. 1989).

REOUEST FORPRODUCTIQN NO. 62; All com:spondence between defendants In this case reearding the incident in question.

BESPON§E: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, aa written, seeks infortnation protected by the attorney-client I attomey work product /joint defense privileges. Seii Rules I92.S, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure1 Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects as to "all correspondence" to the egtent such request constitutes an impermissible 'fishing expedition." Loftin v, Martin, 776 S. W.2d 145, I48 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is not in possession of any discoverable documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63; All insurance reports regarding the incident in question.

fiESPONfilij: Defendant objects to this request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as wri!Wn, seeks information protected by the attorney-client/ attorney work product (joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Defendant further objects to this request to the extent such request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

Subject to and without waving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is not in possession of any dlscovemble documents.

B,EOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: All documents 1·elicd up [sic] or reviewed by any person, entity or insurer, to generate a report regarding the incident in question.

RESPONSE; Defendant objects to thi$ request as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and,. as written, seeks info1mation protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product /joint defense privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Detendant further objects as lo "all documents" to the extent such request constitutes an impcnnissible "fishing expedition." Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQN NO. 65: All pennits obtained for the demolition work

DEFENDANT MANHATrAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT Vl!NTURt'S OBJECTIONS AND REllPONS2S TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF Tlllt ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P•. 120

being performed as a part of the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE; None in this Defendant's posession.

RE;OYEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: All waivers of oonfllct signed, allowing representation of all Defendants by one law firm.

RE8PONSE: Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things that are confidential; proprietmy and protected by the joint-defense privilege.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents afid things that are not. relevant lo tile subject mauer ofUiis lawsuit and no.t reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Respectfully submitted,

'tQ~N0f~r Ml ·. IAEL A. MILLER State Bar No, 14100650 mmiller@tmlfuc.com

Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Greek Blvd., Ste. 1950 Dallas, Texl!S 75219 (469) 916-2552 telephone (469) 916-2555facslmile

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE

DEF!!NllANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OBJEC'l'IONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDtlALiLY AND AS REPRESENTATlVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P. pt

CERTIFICATE OF SEUVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwanjed to all counsel of record as reflected below on this 30th day of April 2014:

Via eerllfled /!{qif, KRR Jason A Gibson Andrew Smith Clifford D. Peel, II The Gibson Law Finn The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana, Suite. 2050 I-lousto11, Texas 77002 P/a/ntif!s' Counsel

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A JOINT VENTURE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDIJULV AND AS REPllESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST REQIJEST FOR PRODUCTION P, 122

CAUSE NO. 2013-76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, lndividuaUy and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Heir to the Esta.le of ANG.l!JL GARCIA § (Deceased); and ORBELINDA HERRERA, § As Next Friend ofASHLEY GARCIA and § BRIAN GARCIA (Minors), § § Plalnliffs, § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, § J.T. V~UGHN CONSTR~JCTION, LLC, § d/b/a VAUGIJN CONSTRUCTION, § MANHATI'AN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., § MANHATIANJVAUGHN,JVP, § TE)'CAS CURB CUT, lNC,, TEXAS CUTTING § & CORING GROUP, INC., and LINDAMOOD § DEMOLITION, l]llC., § § Defendants. § soTll JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN JVAUGHN'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGJlL GAJ(ClA 'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO: Plaintiffs Josephina Garcia, Individually nnd as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia, by and through her counsel of record Jason A. Gibson, Andrew Smith, Clifford D. Peel II of The Gibson Law Firm, 2050 The Lyric Centre, 440 Louisiana in Houston, Texas 77002.

Defendant Manhattan I Vaughn, A Joint Ve11ture (hereinafter "Mallhattan I Vaughn" or "Defendant") serves its Objections and Answers to Plaintiff$ Josephina Garcia, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia's First Set oflnterrogatories.

EXHIBIT

I E DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS JOSEFINA GAllCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENT>\TIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERllOGATORIES PACE I

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTlQNS AND ANSSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROQATOBfES

INTERROGATORY NO. l; Identify each person who a11swered these interrogatories, who assisted in answering, or provided infonnation upon which the answers to these interrogatories are based. For each person, please provide the person's name, address, telephone number, and Job title or position.

ANSWER; Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks. those persons "who assisted in answering," end, as such, is vague end seeks lnfonnetiol) neither relevimt nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waivingd1e aforementioned objections, see below:

Thomas R. Kramer Construction Manager Manhattan I Vaughn, a Joint Venture clo Miller [.aw Finn 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950 Dallas, Texas 75219 469-916-2552

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state what actions, if any, were lllken to ensure Angel Garcia was properly trained and qualified to do the work he was performing on Decem~r 3, 2013. Please include in your response the person .or entity responsible for training Angel Garcia, and whether Angel Garcia actually received training, prior lo. or in preparation for his work on the Kyle Field renovation project site.

ANSWER: Defendant .objects to use of the word "ensure" u it implies certain duties or obligations that are not applicable to Defendant. Defendant further objee)ls to the extent the Interrogatory is vague. not limited in time, and assumes facts not in. Qvidence that Defendant had a duty to "ensure" training for Angel Garcia.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Defendant, Lindamood Demolition, Inc. as Angel Garcia's employer at the time of the Incident, lllld the subcontract between Manhattan I Vallghn and Lindamood Demolition, Inc. ("Lindamood") for Lindamood's contractual role and responsibility nt the Kyle Field renovation project site (''rhe Pioject"), and training and. quali.tlcations required for Angel Garcia to perform the work he was perfurming at the Project at the time of the incident. In addition, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs. to documents produced herein evidencing Garcia's safety training documents, JHAs, and other related documents supplied by Lindamood for the contractual work being performed al the Project at the time of the incident.

DEFENDANT MANllA'rtAN IVA\/Gl!N'S OUJECJ'IONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTil?I? ~DSEP!NA GARCIA, INDIVID\/ALLV AND AS REPR£8ENTATIVI!: OF THE ESTATE 01' ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORl!tS PAGE l ' I .'

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all safety equipment and policies provided to Angel Garcia, or to be used for his safety and benefit, for the work he was perfonning at the Kyle Field renovation projecnlte on Oecen;iber '.3, 2.0l:t

ANSWER: Defendant objects. to the Interrogatory as vague and overly broad as to "all safety equipment and policies,'' not limited in time, and assumes facts not in evidence that Defendant had such a duty to provide "safety equipment" and/or "policies" to Angel Garcia on the date in question.

Subject to and withoui waiving the aforementioned objection, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Defendant, Lindamood Demolition, Inc. as Angel Garcia'.s employer atthe time of the incident, and the subcontract between Manhattan I Vaughn and Lindamood regarding Lindamood's contractual role l;llld responsibility at the Project. In addition, please see documents produced herein regarding the training I qualifications of Angel Garcia. Defendant would further refer Plaintiffs to docwnents prQduc¢d herein evidencing Garcia's safety orielltation I training, Lindarnood's JHAs for the work being Jl(lrfonned at the Project, and. other. related documents supplied l!y Lindamo.odfor the contract11al work ~ing performed at tile Project.

INTERRQGATORY No. 4: . Please state what actions, if any, were taken to ensure ·tbe concrete being, cut and/or shaved .on December 3., 2013 would be supported by the Caterpillar Skid Steer Loader operated by Angel Garcia on the morning of December 3, 2013.

AN$WER; Defendant objects to use ofthe word "ens~" as. it implies certain duties or obligations that are not applicable to Defendant. Defendant further obj1lcts to the extent the Interrogatory is not limited as to lime or scope, and assumes Defendant bad a duty or regponsibility to Plaintiff Garcia. Further, Defendant objects to this Interroptory as being compound/rnultifario11sand potentially mfoleading asworded,

Subject to al)d v;ithqut waiving ihe aforementiont:d objection, Defend.lltlt would refer Plaintiffs to the subcontract between Manhattan I Vaughn and Lindamood concerning Lindamood's contractual role and responsibility at the Projec\. Defendant would further refer Plaintiffs to documents produced here!µ concerning I.he plans and spe~ifications for the demolition being perfonned at the Project at the time of the incident, as well as Lindamood's JHAs and Demolition Plan. Otherwise, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to Defendant Lindamood for the methods and means concerning the work that was ~ing performed al the time of the incident.

INTEBROGATORYNO. S; Does Manhattan I Va11ghn contend Angel Garcia did or failed to do anything that caused or contributed to the injuries made the basis of his claims against you in this lawsuit? [f so, please explain your answer ill detail, including a specific description of each act or omission you contend Angel Garcia comlnitted, and identify by name, address, and phone number each individual who you believe has any personal knowledge of any fact that you believe supports your contention.

DEFENDANT MANHATl'Af'l i·VAUGHN'S QBJECTIQNS AND ANSWERS TO PLAJNTll'F JOSl'FINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUAJ,LY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANCEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATOIUES PACEJ

·-··--·-·-il

l

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on tha grounds that such request, as worded, is overly .broad and requires Defendant to "marshal. all of its evidence," 11Dd such request is outside the pennissible scope ofdiscovery. See Rule TEX. R. CIV. P. 197, cmt. I.

Subject to and without waiving the· aforementioend objections, Defend1111t would refer Plaintiffs to the Travis County Autopsy perfofllled on Angel Garcia (MVJ\'.000284.MVJV.000289), previously produced herein. Defendant J;ontend$ that Garcia wa5 ii\ Violation of the Project's Manhattan I Vaughn Project Site Specific Safety Plan for the Kyle Field Stadium Redevelopment (Uld the Subconl!1icl bt;l\veen Manhattan I Vaughn and Lh~damood.re$1!rdirtg the use of drugs while working on the Project u!lllllf the influence ofmariJill!Oa (See P. MVJV.000289 toxicoh:igy results). see docwnents produced herein on bellalfofManhattan I Vaughn.

DiscC)very is in its early stages and, therefore, l)efendant reserves its right to supplement I.his llllswer in accordance With the Texas Rules of Civil. Procedure and any $0heduling order that may be entered in this case as the facts are developed throughout discovery.

INJERROGATORY NO, 6: Does Manhattan I Vaughn contend any entity other than Angel ~ia did or failed to do anything that caused or contributed to the· cause of Angel Garcia's injuries? If so, please list the. entities which you contend caused or contributed lo the incident and explain the basis of your contention,

ANSWER: Defendant.o'1Jects to this request on the grounds tnat such request, as worded, is overly broad and requires De.fondant to "mar~hal all of its evidence," and such request is outside the pel'niissible scope ofdiscovllfY. See Rule TEX. R. CIV. P. 197, cmt. 1.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioend obiecti1ms. Defend1111t does not have 1111y such contention at this tirrte. Discovery is in its early sta11es and, therefore, Defend1111t reserves its right to supplement this allswer in accordance With the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and any scheduling order that may be entered in this. case as tl\e (iu;ts are developed throughout the discovery process. Otherwise, please refer to Defendant's pleadings on file herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: List all U.S. Health [sic] and Safety Administration ("OSHA") violations, investigations, citations, warning letters or reports iilvolving Manhattan I Vaughn for ihe last ten (10) years regarding: falls, .deaths or the improper on-site operation of construction vehicles, including but not limited to skid steer· loaders or demontion~

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that such request, as worded, is overly broad and is outside 111<;.pennissible scope of discovery. $ee Rule TEX. R. CIV. P. 197, cmt. 1.. None to Defendant's knowledge that are similar in n@ture, other than the ongoing OSHA's investigation of the incident made the basis orPlaintiffs' claims herein. .. !'

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN., VAUGHN'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS ro pl,AINTIFF ~!)SEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF Tiffi ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRSTSET OF INTERROGATORIES PAOE4

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify any lawsuits filed against Manhattan I Vaughn or a subcontractor of Manhattan I Vaughn in the last ten (10) yetU"s involving a fall, the improper on-site use of a construction vehicle, including but not limited to s)dd .!!leer loaders, .demolition processes or failing concrete which caused the personal injury or death of any employee.

ANSWER! Defendant objects to .this lnterroga\0 ry on t~e grounds it is vague, multifarious, and overly broad as.to time and scoJle W\lh respect to the t.emis: "falls," "improper on-site use of.a constructionvehicle," "demolition precesses," and "falling' concrete." Defendant funher objects to this Interrogatory as seeking infomiation that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence .. See 192.3. and l 9:!.4, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving theaforementioned objections, none.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9; . . Please state the approval process for the proposed demolition which occurred 011 December 3, 2013. Please include in your answer which entities proposed the approved dentolition process, the names of the people involved in the approval decision, and when the approval toe>k place.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and assumes facts not in evidence to the extent it assumes there was an approval process for the·proposed demolition, and that this Defendant was involved in any type of approval process.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant was not involved in "an approval process for the proposed demolition." This Defendant was not irtvolved in the means and methods of the dcmolitiqn work being perfonned at th~ .time of. !)le i11cident, all of which would be left to the subcontractor; Lindamood. Defendant would refer Plaintiffli to the subcontract documellis between Manhattan I Vaughn and Lindamood for the demolition work being perfomied at the time of the incident.

INTERROGATORY N0.10: Please describe the portion of the wall or structwe which was being demolished. Please include in your answer a description ,of the wall or structure itself, where the construction vehicle was in relation to the wall, how many engineers or workers were in the vicinity, and where exactly the concrete fell onto the construction vehicle. ·

ANSWER: Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Defendant, Lindamood. Demolition, Inc..

INTERRQGATORX NO. 11: Please describe any structural telidl1g which was performed on Kyle Field and the area where Angel Garcia was working, before the Incident occurred on December 3, 2013. Please include in your answer the type and form of structural testing, who conducted the structural t!'liting, the dates the structural testing was performed,. and the .outcome of the structUlJ!l testing.

DEFENDANT MANHAT1"AN I VAUGHN'S OB1£Ctl0111S AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTlrtF JOSEFINA. GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REl'RESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET• OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 5

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, overly broad as to time and scope; and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this ca!le.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is not aw@l'e of structutal testing p~rformcd on the existing ·sttucture where the incident made the basis of Plaintiffs' claims occurred during the Kyle Field Renovation Projec(

INIERROGATORy NO. i2; Please explain what actions, if any. Manhattan I Vaughn took to ensure that construction vehicles operating above the ground floor on the Kyle Field renovatiOn project were protected from falling off the structure.

ANSWER: Oefendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, not limited in thne or scope, and assumes facts not in evidence in that this it was this Defendant's role I responsibility to "ensure" Cllnstruction vehicles opetatinl! above the ground floor were protected from falling off the .structure. Defend\lllt further obj~cts to use of the word "ensure" !IS it implies certain duties or obligations that are 1.101 applicable to this Defendant. Defen.<lant further objects to this Interrogatory as it is worded re(jliies Defendant to "mar$hal all .of its evidence," and s11ch request is outside the pertnissilile scope of discovery; See Rule TEX. R. CIV. P. 197, cmt. I.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objectl<m, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to the subcontract be.tween Manhattan I Vaughn and Lindan10od concerning Lindanmod's contractuiµ role and responsibility at the Project. Defendant would further refer Plaintiffs to documents produced herein concerning the plans and specificuti.ons for the demolition being performed at the Project at the time of the incident, as weli as Lindamood's JHAs and Demolition Plan. Otherwise, Defendant refers Plaintiffs to Defendant Lindamood for the means and methods of the work thiit was being performed at the time of the incident.

INIERROGATORY NO. 13: Please de~ribe in detail the busin~s sttuctlire ofManhatt.an l Vaughn and its aflilia~:in relation to the Kyle Field renovatipnproject. Please include.in ypur an8wer the contractual agreements and sub·contracting structure betwee Vaughn Construction, Inc,, Manhatan. I Vaughn, JVP.• Manhattan Construction Co., Lindamood Demolition; Inc,, Texas Curb Cut, Inc., and Texas Cutting an.d Coring Group, I11c. with regards to the Kyle Field renovation project.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogmpry on the basis that it is vague and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant furjher objects to this .fntertogatory seeking information regarding "its affiliates" as vague and assumes the other defendants are "its affiliates."

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is a joint venture partnership comprised of Manhattan Construction Company, Inc., a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Texas, and J. T. Vaughn Construction, LLC, a domestic limited liability company. Defendant is the Consttuction Manager-at-Risk by contract with the Board of

DEFENDi\NT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN'S OBJECTIONS AND Ai'1SW£RS TOl'LAINTlilF JOSEFINA GAiiclA, INDIVIDUALLVANI) AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES . PAGE 6

il ' Regents of the Texas A&M University System for the Kyle Field Renovation Project. Defendants, Manhattan Construction Company and J. T. Vauglm Construction, LLC self- perform work at the Project under. separate S)Jbcontracts With Manhattan I Vauglm.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please describe in detail any duties or resp(msibilitles of any kind that Manhattan I Vaughn and/or any of Manhattan I Vaughn's employees may have had or assumed for any safet)'·related policies, procedures, studies, or programs that directly or indirectly applied to Lindamood Demolition, Inc. during this period.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that lt is vague and .lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subjeet to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, to the point Defendant understands the question, none. Defendant would refer Plaintiffs fo the subcontract between Manhatttan I Vaughn an.d Lindamood, and the Manhat1'"1 I Vauglm Project Site Specific Safety Pian for the Kyle Field Stadium Redevelopment regarding the role and responsibility for subcontractor Lindamood as It pertains to safety-related policies and procedures for the Project.

INTERROGATOR\' NO. 15; Please identify the persons or entities responsible for managing arid/or conducting the cutting and shaving of cOncrete at the Kyle Field renovation site on De~mber 3, 2013.

ANSWER: Defendwit objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and .seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to ..the discovery of admiS$ible evidence in this case.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Defendant, Lindamood IJem9Htion, Inc.

JfilERRQGATORX r;o. 16; Please identify the .head safety director(s) or person(s) in charge of safety for the Kyle Field renovation location, including their official title and the name of their employer.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, specifically the phrase "the head safety director(s)" is not defined. Defundant further objecl5 as lhe Interrogatory assumes fi!cts not in evidence, specifically lhat one individual is "in charge of safety for Kyle Field renovation" and therefore is potential misleading "l' written.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Gary C. Lambert, Senior Safety Manager, Is the designated safety representative for Manhattan I Valil!hn for the Kyle Field Renovation Project., Otherwise, Defendant wo.uld refer Plaintiffs to the individual trade and or subocntractor and their respective designated safety representative for the Project. "'

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN'S ()BJECTIONSANDANSWER.S TO PLAINTIFF JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 7

I ~

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please describe any investigations perfonned after the incident on December 3, 2013. Please inch1de in your answer the name and contact information of the person or entity who conducted the investigation, when the investigation(s) occurred, and the outcome/results/findings of the investion(s).

ANSWER: Defendant objects to .this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks information protected by the attotney·client I attorney work product privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules ofBvidence.

Defendant further objecls to the extent such .Interrogatory, as written, seeks information protected by the consulting expen privilege. See Rule 192.3(e).Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject 11> and without waiving the aforementioned obje¢tions, l)efendant is aware that OSHA has an ongoing investigation, and Texas A&M Uiliveristy police performed an investigation. Otherwise, all other investigation concerning this accident has been turned over to Defendant's counsel, which is ongoing.

lNTEBROGATORY NO, 18: Please state all remedial actions ta~n after the incident mllde the basis of this lawsuit occurred, including but not limited to new safety policies and/or the installation of safety equipment

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to. the extent it seeks information protectlld by the aUomey·client /attorney work product privileges. See Rules 192.5, Texas Rules of Civil Ptocdure; Rule 503, Texas Rules of Evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, none as to this Defendant.

INTERROGAi:ORY NO. 19: Please identify all permits obtained for the demolition, expansion and/or renovation of Kyle Field;-as it pertains to the work being dcine on or around the time Angel Gaicia was killed.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad as to time or scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and with1>ut waiving the aforementioned objection, none as to this Defendant. Defendant would refer Plaintiffs to Lindamood Demolition, Inc.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please identify every worker who has been iajured on the job since the Kyle Field renovation project began, including a description Of the injury and the date of each Injury.

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN'S OBJECTIONS ANO ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDMDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF IN'l'ERROGATORIES PAGES

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this intertogatory on the basis that it is overly broad as lo time and scope, and seeks lnfonnation tha.1 i.s neither relevant norreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objection, sec attached.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: The name of all trade associoiions of which Manhattan I Vaughn Is a member.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad as to time and scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence.

INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please identify the name of Angel Garcia's direct supervisor at the time of his death, including the name of the person's. ~111ployer and their job ti lie.

ANSWER: Defendant would refer PlaintiflHo Detendant, Lindamood Demolition, Inc.

lNTERROGATORX NO. 23: Pl!'llseidentify every person or entity (Including insurers), to your knowledge, that has participated in or conducted an hrvestigation regarding the incident in question.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this lntertogatoty ns vague, overly broad as to time and scope, and, as written, seeks infonnalion protected by the attorney-client I attorney work product privileges. See Rules 192.S, Texas Rules of civil Procdure; RuleS03, TexasRulcsofEvidence.

Defendant further objects to the extent such lnterrog~tory, as written, seeks information protected by the consulting expert privilege. See Rule l 92.3(e), 'fexas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objections, Defendant is aware that OSHA has an ongoing investigation, and Texas A&M Univeristy police performed an Investigation, Otherwise, all other inves.tigation concerning this accident has been turned over to Defendant's counsel, which is ongoing.

DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAVGllN'S OBJECTIONS ,\!'ID ANSWf;RS TO PLAINTIFF JOSEFINA GARCIA, INDIVIDVALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVEOFTIIE ESTATE OF ANOELOAl!CIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 9

i Respectfully submitted, I T

MI IAfl:L A. MILLER State Bar'No. 14100650 mmillpr@tmlfuc.com

Turtle·Cretk Centre 3811 Tutile Creek Blvd,, Ste. 1950 Dallas, Texas 75.219 (469) 916·2SS2 telephone (469) 916-2555 facsimlle

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT MANHATTAN I VAUGHN, A ,IQINT VENTURE

CERTIFICATE OF §ERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record as reflected below on this 30'h day ofApril 2014:

Via Cert/fled Mql/, RRR Jason A. Gibson Andrew Smith Clifford D. Peel, II The Gibson Law rirm 'Ille Lyric Centre

~l ~l~~v/ 440 Louisiana, Suite 2050 Houston, Texas 77004 Plaintiffs' Counsel

MICHAEL A. MILLER

DEFENDANTMANllATTAN I VAUGHN'S OBJECTIONS AND.ANSWERS TO Pl..AlNl'IFFJOSEflNAGARCIA, INDlVWUALLV AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE. OF ANGEL GARtl/\.'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES P/\GE 10 .l 't1 J

CAUSE NO. 2013-'76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, 11'dlvidually § INTflE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Heir to the Estate or § ANGEL GARCIA, Deceased; and, § ORBELINDA HERRERA ail § Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA !l and BRYAN GARCIA, Minors § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; § MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; § MANHATTAN I VAUGHN JVP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP; § TEXAS CT.IITING & CORING GP, INC.; § and, LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. § 80TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TEXAS .CUTTING & CORING LP'S ~PONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' R!!lotmsTS FOR DlSCLOSJJRE TO: Plaintiffs, Josefina Garcia, Individually and as fleir to the ]);state of Angel Garcia (Deceased); and, Orbelinda aerrera, . as Next Friend of Ashley Garcia and Bryan Garcia, Minors, by and through their attorneys of record, ,Jason A. GibSOI:\, Jonathan D. Sneed and Clifford D. Peel II of The Gibson Law Finn, 2050 The Lyric Centre, 440 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002.

Defendant Texas Cutting & Coring LP (hereinafter "Texas Cutting"), submits its Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests .for Disclosure pursuant to Rules 194.2(a) through 194.2(1) of the Texa.s·Rules of Civil Procedure.

EXHIBIT

I Gt TEXAS CUTIING & CORING LP'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Page l Oa.rcia-80fh.Jr.ulfcial Diltµ-icl Corut o/J:larrl!J Co.-- Cause No. ~OJ3·76fSSO

RESPONSES TO REQtJli:STS ll'QR DISctQSYRE

(a) State the correct name(s) of the party(ies) to the bi.wsuit. RESPONSE: Manhattan I Vaughn, A Joint Venture Manhattan Constructioh Cotnpany, lnc. J. T. Vaughn Construction LLC d/b/a Vaughn Construction Lindamood Demolition, Inc. Texas Cutting & Coring LP Texas Cutting & Coring GP, Inc.

These are the correct legal names for the defendants herein named in t!lls lawsuit.. However, Texas Cu(tlng & Goring GP, Inc. is not a properly named party and, therefore, is not a proper party to this lawsuit.

(b) State the name, address and telephone number of each potential party.

RESPON:SE: None at. this ti.me. Discovery is in its early stag!'s. Texas Cutting reserves the right to supplement this Response pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

(c) State each ofy0 ur legal theories and, in general, factual bases for each of your claims or defenses.

RESPONSE: Texas Cutting, as authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, g<:nerally denies each and every, all and singUllU', the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Original Petition and all amendments and/or supplements thereto, and demands strict proof thereof by a prepohder(Ulce of the evld,ence.

Pleading further, Texas Cutting asserts it is a provider of workers' compensation insurance that provided co\lera.ge in cofinectiort the incident made the subject of this litigation and that benefits under such pollcy(ies) have been paid to one or tnore Plaintiffs, Teito.s Cutting invokes the protections afforded it under Section 408.001 of the Texas Labor Code.

Pleading further, to the extent that .the medical. expenses and/or healthcare expenses exceed the amount actually paid on behalt of Plaintiffs, Texas Cutting asserts the statutory dc;fenses set forth In Section 4LO105 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Specifically, recovery of med!~ and/or healthcare expenses by or on behalf of Plaintiffs is limited to the amo11nt actually paid or incurred. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 41.0105. .

TEXAS CUTTINO & CORING LP'S RESPONSES 1'0 REQUESTS FO.R DISCLOSURE Page2 Garcia - 80111 Judicial bi.strict Corot of Harrla Co. - Cause No~ 2013·'!6550

Pleading further, Texas Cutting asserts Section 18.091 of the Texas Civil Prltctice and Remedies Code to the extent that the Plaintiffs are alleging Jost wages or Jost earning capacity as a result of the incident in question, Texas Cutting would show that such recovety is limited to net Joss after reduction for income trui payments or unpaid tax liability pursuant to any federal income tax law. See TEX. CJV. PRAC . & Rl!:M. CODE§ 41.0105 ..

Plea.:Jing further, Texas Cutting pleads that, under the provisions of the Texas Civil PractlcQ an<! .Remedies Code, plaintiffs are barred from recov!'iing J;iunitive dama,g¢iiftom Texas Gutting. Sec TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 41.. 0Q:3, In the alternative, Texas Cutting f\lrther ·pleads that the appealable statutes and relevant case law place a limitation or "cap" on the punitive damages or statutory damages, if any. See TEX. ClV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 41.008.

Texas Cutting further pleads that any claini asserted by Plaintiffs for punitive or additional damages is unconstitutiona,l and any award of s.uch damages would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and/ or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article l, Sections 13, 14, and 19 of the Texas Constitution because, among other things, (1) the elements Plaintiffs must establish to receive such damages are so vague and imprecise that they fail to. give a person of reasonable lnteWgence fail: warning that his conduct may be subject to such damages and they promote arbitrary arid discriminatory jwy verdicts; (2) the lack of adequate standards governing the amount of such damages the juty may award including, but not limited to, the ptopertion of punitive damages to actual .damages awarded, falls to give a person of re.asonable intelligence falr warning of the consequences of his actions; (3) the lack of bifurcated trial proceedings where evidence relating to such damages would not be admitted until compensatory liebillzy has been establishE>d; (4) \U'IY award of such damages would constitute a taking of property without .due procee&;. (5) an award of such damage wou!-d constitute an excessive fine or cruel and unusual punishment; (6) an award of such dlU!lages mlgb,t subject Texas Cutting to multiple penal sanctions for the same "offense." The imposition of pu.nitive or additional damages in this case would also be unconstitutional because of the lack of procedural safeguards and practices guaranteed to all persons subject to penal sanctions by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and their counterparts in the Texas Constitution. Pleading further, Texas Cutting pleads that pre•judgment interest should be calculated on the shortest length of time permitted by law. Texas Cutting further asserts that prejudgment interest is not calculated.on future interest. See TEX. FIN. CODE§ 304.1045. !fit should be necessary, Texas Cutting further asserts that pre-judgihent interest is not caICUlated on exemplary damages. See TEX. CN.

TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP'S RESPONSES 'l'O REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Page 3 Oarcia .. 8Dth Judic~l District Corot ofHarrl!J Co. - Ca.use No. ~13·765$>

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 41.007. Te~ Cutting further plead that Section 304.105 of the Texas Financial Code applies when settlement offers have been made. Siee TEX. FIN. CODE§ 304.105.

Pleading further, and without any waiver of its previously pleaded denials and defenses, Texas Cutting asserts it is entitled to settlement credits or set-offs, as provided for under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, for any money collected or promis.ed to any Plaintiff or Plaintiffs ftom any tortfuMor or settling party or j1.1dgme71t based on the incident made the basis of Plaintiffs' claims.

(d) State the amount of economic damages you are seeking in the above matter and the method used in calculating said damages.

RESPONSE: None at this time. Texas Cutting reseives it~ right to. supplement this Response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

(e) State the name, address and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief stat~ment of each identlf\e!f person's connection with the case.

RESPONSE: Josefina Oarcia Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Ange) Garcia, Deceased Orbelinda. Herrera as Next Friend of Ashley Garcia and Bryan Garcia, Minors c/ o Jason A. Gibson, Jonathan d . Sneed and Clifford D. Peel 11 THE: GIBSON LAW FIRM The Lyric Centre 440 LOuisiana, Suite 2050 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 650-1010 Plaintiffs

Officer Justin Vykukal (11402005187) Officer Josh DeLeon (#601009909) S1.1pervisor Bobby Richardson, Jr. (11201009726) C. Crenshaw (11601008607) W. Ooldwater.(#902000357) K. Willinms (#4020Q0517) M. SoamtU"do (#802004399) Dave O~\l.om (JT) Detective Cody Clemens Evidence Technician Murphy Custodians of Re.cord TsxAS A&M UNIVERSITY POLICE 1111 Research Pkwy.

TEXAS CUTTINO & CORING LP'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Page 4 Oorcla .. 80th Judicial District Co.rui-o/ Harris Co. - CQuU No. ~013·?6550

College Station, Tel<as 77845 (979) 845-2345 Agency that performed the investigation .of the incident made the basis ofPlaintiffs' claims

Wendell Ramsey, Safety Coordinator Kris Gooding, Supervisor Hugo MQntoya, $upervisor Jose Montoya, Laborer Jose Molin11. Helper Texas Cutthig .~ Coring.LP c/o Michael A. Miller THE MtLLERLl\W FIRM 3811 Turtl!lCreekB!vd., Suite 1950 Dallas, Texas 75219 (4691 916-2552 D.efendant and employees who may have knowledge concerning the iiwident made the basis of Plaintiffs' claims and/or the work the Texas Gutting was performing at Kyle Field

Jake Lindamood, Vice President Andy McEhtain, Supervisor Jeremy Gardner.• laborer Daniel Burge, laborer Lindamood Demolitlon, Inc. c/o Michael A. Miller THEM!LLERLAW FIRM 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950 oailas,Texas 75219 (469) 916-2552 Defendant and employees who may have krtowledge concerning the mcident. made the basis of Plaintiffs' claims and/ or the work Li.ndamood was perforrn.ing at Kyle Field

Edward Schultz MD Sherri Moore RN Samantha Ketchum RN Custodians of Record S'J', Ji)SftPH REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CEi'ltER 2801 Franciscan Drive Bryan.,Texas 77802 (979) 776-2524 Health cate providers who may have knowledge concerning Angel Garcia's ir>,juries

TEXAS CU'M'ING & CORING LP'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Pages Garcia- 80th Judieidl D1$jrlcE-Co1\lt of HQnis Co. - Cause No. 2013-765$0

Leisha Wood MD, Deputy Medical Examiner Rodrigo Camaeho, Investigator Custodians of Records TRAVIS COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE 1213 Sabine St. Austlrt,Texas 78701 (512) 854-9599 Medical ~aminer and investigator who pel'formed the autopsy on deceased, Angel Garcia and/or conducted an investigati1;m in connection with the death <>fthe decedent

Tommy A. Munoz BRAZOS COUNTY JUSTICE OF 1'HE PEACe Precinct 2, Place 2 20P S.outh Texas. Avenue, Suite 114 (979) 361-4190 County official.with knowledge of the decedent

Tc1111 Kramer, C.onstruction Mrmager Jeremy Ballard, Superintendent James:T. Cuddih<:t>, Sr. Superintendent Gary Lambert, Safety Supervisor Manhattan I Vaughn, A Joint Venture c/o Michael A. Miller THE MILLER LAW FIRM 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950 Dallas, Texai; 75219 (469) 916-2552 ~fendant Cl/Id emplhyees who may knowledge concerning the in:cldent m.c;ide the basis of P!ai'ritiffs' clClims, and/ or the work ManhattCln l Vaughn was pelforrning at Kyle Field

Joseph AreUano 1602 South College Ave., Apt. 31 Bryan, Texas 77801 (9791 450-6977 Rice W(:llker Electrical Company employee who may have knowledge concerning the incident made the basis of Plaintiffs' claims

TEXAS CUTI!NG & CORING LP'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Page 6 Garcia -8Dth Judicial District Corut of Harris Co. - Cause No. 2013·76550

(I) Fo1· each individual who may be called by you or your attomey as a testifying expert witness, .stllte:

1. the expert's name, address and telephone number;

2. the subject matter on which the expert will testify; 3. the mental impres;oions anc:\ opinic;ms held by the expert and a brief summary of the basis. for thern (or docume.nts reflecting such lnfonnation if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to your control); 4. if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to your control: A) produce all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by or prepared by or for the exp.ert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and,

B) produce the expert's current resume and bibliography.

RESPONSE!· Texas Cutting has not yet detetrnb;1e<i which individuals they mar call as testifying expert wimesse~ in this case. Ho~er, Discovmy is in its inflUJ,cy and the Texas Cutting reserves the right to supplement withln the tbi:i:e limitations provided by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court or by any. agreements between the Parties. Texas Cutting further reserves the right to withdraw the designation of any expert and to aver positively ~t such previously designated expert will nqt j:le called upon to testlty as an expert at trial, and to re- desi~.ate sarne as a consulting expert, who cannot Ile ~ed by opposing. counsel. Texas Cutting further reserves the rlght to elicit the opinion testimony of experts designated and called by other parties to this suit, including but not limited to: 1. any witness or expert who has been or will be nained by any other party in any answer to any discovery request, even if the. party that designated the witness or expert is no longer a party to the lawsuit at the time of trial; 2. any witness or expert whose name appears on any documents that has been or will be produced by any PartY in any response to any discovery request;

TEXAS CUIT!NG & CORING LP'S RESPONSES 1'0 REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Pago 7 G=m - 80th ./udlclcl Dislricl Coiut o/H.,,U Co. -C....e No. 2013•76SSO

3. any witness or expert whose name is reflect.ed in any document that has be!fil or will be obtained through the use of authorizations and/or depositions on written questions; 4. any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document that has been or will be s.ubm!tted to the Court by e,ffidavit; 5. any witness or expef"t whose name is reflected in any document that has been or will be subpoenaed by any party; 6. any witness or expert whose name appears in the transcript of any deposition taken in this matter: and, 7. any witness or expert whose name is reflected in any document that has been or will be attached to the transcript of any deposition. Texas Cutting further reserves the right to call undesignated experts in rebuttal, whose Identities and testimony cannot be reasonably foreseen until Plaintiffs have presented evidence at trial. Texas Cutting further reserves the right to ·elicit expert testimony and/ or la,y opinion testimony that would assist the juzy in determining material fact Issues that would not violate the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Texas Rules of Evidence, Texas Cutting further reserves any additional rights they may have regarding expert witnesses under the Texa.s Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Rules of Evidence, and/ or any other case law or ruling of this Honorable Court. It is anticipated that healthcare providers may testilY regarding the prior health condition of the Decedent and/or either Plaintiff an<! the manifestations, if any, of mental anguish on them. Records Custodians will testify in accordance with the Texas Rules of Evidence in order to establish the adprissibility of certain business records.

(g) Produce any discoverable Indemnity and Insuring agreements.

RESPONSE: Please refex to the documents produced this date on compact disc and marked TCC_OOOOOl-00018 l.

TEXAS CUTl'ING & CORING LP'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS !'OR DISCLOSURE Page 8 Oarci'Q.- .BOth Judfda~Distrlcl COrtll ofHarris Co. ,.. Cali.sa No. 2013·76550

(h) Produce any discoverable settlement agreements. RESPONSE: Texas Cutting is not aware of any such agreements.

(i) Produce any dlscovei:!lble witness statements. RESPONSE; Please refer to the TAMU PD Incident/Investigation Report produced this date on compact disc and marked TCC_OOO 182-000231.

Ul Produce all medical ;ecords and bills, that are reasonably related to the iltjuries or damages asserted, or in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills. RESPONSE: Please refer to the documents produced this date on compact disc and marked TCC_000162-000237.

(k) Produce all medical records and bills that are obtained by you or your attorney by virtue of the authorization attached hereto. RESPONSE: Not applicable.

(I) Produce the name, address, and telephone number ofany person who may be designated ,as a tesponsible third party.

RESPONSE: Discovery is in its initial stages. Texas Cutting therefore reserves its tiglit to supplement this Response pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Or4er and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

TEXAS CU'M'ING & CORING )',P'S RESPONSES TO REQUF;STS FOR DISCLOSURE Page9 Gorda,- 80th JudklaJ Dl.ttrlc< Corot o/Harris Co. -Caus• No. 2013·16SSO

1GfulW u~· MICHAEL A. MILLER State Bar No. 14100650 mmiller@tm1fpc.com THEM!LLER LAW FIRM 1950 Turtle Creek Center 3811 Turtle Cr~k B()Ulevard Dallaa,Texas 75219 (4f59) 916-2552 (469) 916-2555 fax

A'ITORNEYS FOR DE.FENDANT TEXAS CUTl'INO & CORINO LP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of Defendant Texas Cutting & Coring LP's Responses to Plruntiffs' Requests for Disclosure was served on counsel of record for

Plaintiffs by way offacsitnile. (713) 650·1011, an~f:t ... e.spol!ie d~ments are being produced on compact disc by US mail on the@day of a;µUL 2014 . JasonA. Gibson Jonathan D. Sp.eed Clifford D, Peel II THE GIBSON LAW FIRM 2050 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Houston, Texas 7'7002

MI HAEL A. MILLER

TEXAS CUTTINO & CORINO LP'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Page 10 Garcia· BOlhJudlGlal Dlalrici Corut of Hanis Co. -ca.... No. 3013·76550

CAUSE NO. 2013-76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Heir to the Estate of § ANGEL GARCIA, Deceased; and, § ORBELINDA HERRERA as § Next Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA § and BRYAN GAR.CIA, Minors § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUC'J'ION LLC § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; § MANHA'J'TAN CONSTRUC'J'ION CO., INC.; § MANHATTAN I VAUGHN JVP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP; § TEXAS CU'J'TING & CORING GP, INC.; § and, LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, !NC. § BOTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, mc.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSBS TO PLAINTJFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST§ FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Plaintiffs Josefina Garehl, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Angel Garcia, Deceased by and through her counsel of record Jason A. Gibson, Jonathan D. Sneed, Clifford D. Peel.II of THI!: GIBSON LAWFlRM, 2050 The Lyric Centte, 440 Louisiana in Houston, Texas 77002. ·

Defendant L.indamood Demolition, Irie. (hereinafter "Llndamood"l submits its Objections !llld Responses to Plaintiff Joseijna Garcia, htdividually and as Representative of the Estate of Angel Garcia Deceased's (h~re\nafter "Plaintiff' Garcia") First Requests for Prodttction, pursuant to Rules 192, 193 and 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

RE§PONSES TO REQUEST FOR PROJ)UCTION 1. All records documenting Angcl Gi;u-cia's employment with Lindamood, including but not linrited to perso:rmel files, work history, time· Jags, payment records and training logs.

RESPONSE; Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vagµe, not limlied in time or scQpe, Jacks the degree of specificity ~quired under the Texas Rules o( Civil Procedure, and cQnstitutes an impermissible fishing expedition.

LINDAMOOD DEMOL!TlON, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPO>NN~S:iESi·--~!!!!!11•-a TO P~Ail'ITlFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQ{)EST FOR PRODUCTION~ EXHIBIT Page I °""'"'- BOth Judlalol llist!rot Co•n, Hom.. C..my c .... NO. !lol3·16550 .

I __.._1-f_,__·

Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the subject mattet of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lindllll\ood further objects to this Request to tile imi»nt that it seeks the production of docwrtents and things which ate proprietary and co.nfidential. Subject to and withoJlt waiver of the. foregolqg objections, records documenting Angel Garcia's employment with Linda!)'IQ<)d are being produced. See LMD_000238-000324.

2. All contracts or other written agreements entered between Lindamood, Texas A&M or any defendant in this case, related to the K;yle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the eictent thiat it is overly broad, vs,gqe, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of specificity required µnder the .Texas R1;1les of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an Impermissible fishing expedition. Further objection is made on the grounds thiat this request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead tc the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents .and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorneycolient, and attorney work-product privileges. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the eittent that the tenn "written agreements• is unclear and undefined. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, the subcontract by and between ManhattanJVaughn and Lindamood, .and. the subcontract by and between Lindamood and Tel!aS Cutting & Coring LP are being produced. See LMD_000325-000462.

3. All correspondence between Lindamood, Texas A&M or. any other entity or defendant in this case, related to the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to correspondence related to contracts or agreements for the

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUC'l'ION Page2 Garcia.- BOfh Jtldiciat Disfirct C(lurl,. Harrli County Cau.se No. 2013-76550

performance of actiV!ties related to construction, .construction management, accident prevention or safety at the works!te; RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to tl:Us Request on the grounds that it is overly brOad, seeks the production of documents and things which are proprietary and confidential, irrdevant to j:he issues in tliis lawsuit and are not reasonal;lly ca]eulated to 1e.11d to the ciiscovecy of a<:huissible evidence. Furtber Lindamood does not have all COl'l"Cspondence requested above in its possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiver 0£ the foregoing abjections, Lindamood produces its: a. Demo Safety Plan for Area Without Front Protection Wall b. Health, Safety & Environmontal Manual c. Site Specific Safety Plan d. Safety & Work Plan forTAMU Kyle Field Stadium

See LMD_000463·000534. Additionally, please refer to Response No. 2 above.

4. All documents related to, dcpumen!lng or describing the. scope of work to be performed by Linde,moodfor the IfyleField renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague and not limited m scope. SU bject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please rerer to the Contracts referenced~ fa Response No. 2 above an.cl the documents produced in response thereto.

5. All documents re.lated to or discussing demolition work, purchase of materials, supplies, provision of equipment, provision of lab0r, safety, insurance and workers' compensation, as it applies to any defendant in this case. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, lackll the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and seeks the production of documents and things tllat are. confidential, propr!etruy and protected by the attorney-client and attorney woi"k-product privileges. Further objection Is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things which are not relevant to the issues in this law;suit and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLPJNTIFF OAR.C!A'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page3 Garci.(i-- 80thJUd(cialDitit{rct Court, Harris CoUnty CCIUH No. 2013·?6550

Further objection is made on the grounds that 1,,indamood does not have all of the requested documents in its possession, custody or control. Si.tbject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to responses 2·4 above, the Workers Comp reP(}rtlng doc=ents produced in respoQse to Request No. 1 above, Lindamood's Kyl!' Fleid Demolition Plan and Revised Demolition Plan produced in response to this Request and m\U'ked LMD_OOOS3S·000541, Oll,ld Lindamood's Daily Logs produced and marked LMD_000542-0005't0.

6. All documents l\lld correspqni;\ence related to. the progress of the Kyle Field renovation project between or among the pa,rties, including Lind~ood, or any other pa,rty with responsibilities on the Kyle Field ren<Jvation project site. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to. this Request to the extent that it Is overly l>roaq, v:ague, uot l.ii:nlted .in tJro,e or scope, .la9ks the degree of speQiflcity required under the Teicaa Rules of Civil Procedure. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things which are not relevant to the issues in this .lawsuit 'il,ld are not reasonably c!llculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things protected l>Y the joint-defense privilege. Further objection is made on the grounds tha.t Lindamood dpes not have all of the requested documents in its possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections please refer to the progression photos produced and marked LMD_000571-000702.

7. All notes and documents in possession of Lindamood regarding inspections performed by OSHA on the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE1 Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague; not limited in scope, burdensome and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLl'f!ON, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page<! Garcia - 80th Judicfal Dl.stlict COurt, Horris Counfy Causer No • .201$•76550

Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production or document se11d.things protected by the attorney-client and attorney work•product privileges.

Subject to and without waiver or the foregoing objections, please refer to the Texas A&M University Police Incident/Investigation Report previously produced . in L!ndamood's Responses t<i PJaintiffa' Requests for Diaclosure.

Further, based on information and belief, an investigation by OSHA is ongoing. Lindamood reserves the right to supplement this Response in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

8. All documents related to inspections done on the Kyle Field renovation project, including but not limited to the area where Angel Garcia was working and killed. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas RU:fos of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an Impermissible fishing e:.;pedition. Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and things that ate not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery Of 11.dmissible evidence, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery is outweighed by the. likely benefit the discovezy would provide. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things acquired or developed subsequent to the incident upon which this suit is based and which were made in connection with the investigation or in anticipation of the defense of the claiins made in connection with this litigation.

Further objection is made on the grounds that seeks production of non-discoverable matters relating to an expert or consulting expert whose work product, opinions or impressions will not iorm, in whole or in part, a basis of.the opinions of an expert who will testify at !he trial of this cause. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer ti> the Texas A&M University i>ollce Incident/ Investigation Report produced in Lindamood's Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Disclosure.

LlNDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAiNTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Pages Garcia - 801h Judicial Dtslirct Court, Harris County CQUn_No. 3013·76550

9. All minutes of meetings {or other similar document) at which planning, risk management, engineering, demolition or safety was discussed. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that It is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, a11d lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents .and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawiouit, It constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, and the documents sought are net reasonably calculated to lead to the dlsoovezy of !!.dmissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to Response No. 3 above. Additionally, Lindamood produces the follovitlng marked LMD_000703-000755:

a. August 16, 2013 Ssfefy' Meeting asenda (and photo) b. November 7, 2013 Safety Meeting agenda c. November 2013 JSA Worksheets d. December 2013 JSA Worksheets

l 0. All recordings or videos of the work being performed on the Kyle Fie Id renovation project, including audio or video footage of the incident ill question. RESPONSE: Please refer to Linclamood's response to Request No. 6 above.

11. All documents identifying safet}' Issues or concerns as it pertaills to the Kyle Field renovation, including but not limited to the demolition process and the work being performed by Angel Garcia and his employer. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to thia Request to the e:ictent that it is overly broad and not llinited in scope. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request is unreasonably duplicative, harassing and burdensome.

Lindamood further oJ:Uects to this Request to the extent that it this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint.deknse, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing oQjections, please refer to the documents produced In response to Requests No. 3, 5 and 9 above.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'$ OBJECTIONS.AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST Rl!:QUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page6 Garcia- 80th .Judicial Distirct Court _Hanta Coun1y Ce1use 1/11. 2013·76550

12. All documents mentioning actions 14k:en by defendants to correct 1µ1y safety iss11es .that were identified, as it pertains to the Kyle Field renovation proJect RESPONSE: Lin..damood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, Vag\le and not limited in time or scope. Additionally, Lindamood does.n 't have "all documents mentioning actions ~n by defendants!' to ~rre.ct •any safety issues... pertain(lng] to the Kyle Field. r~ovatiort pr-0ject.• Further, objection is mad.e on the grounds that this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expeditfon. Further objectio1;1 Is made on the grounds that this Request seeks. the production or documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and atton'l<;y work-product privileges.

81lbjept to and without waiver of the foregoing objections and to the C!Ktentany su.ch non•prlvile$ed doc.umenta el<!st and. are. . in Llndamood's possession, cuat11dy 11r control, Lindamood will pro<!uce.

13. All documents and plans of the Kyle Field renovation project, including. but not limited to blue prints, specifications, structt.1ral geJ'letal notes and structural plan sheets, defming de.molition workto be perfonned on the e;dsting northeast pedestrian ramp. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in sC:!>pe, and seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not.reasonably calculated to lead to the dlscovezy or adIDissiblB·evidence.

Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it is unreasonably duplicative, harlll!sing and burdensome and it constitutes aI1 impertnissible fishing expedition. Further objection is macle pn the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things which are proprietary and confidential. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the ciocwnents produced in response to Requests No. 2, 3 and 5 above, as we.II as the documertts and things produced by Manhattan jVaughn JVP in thill cause of action.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, (NC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RJ!;SPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIR.ri' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page7 Ocucia - BOth JU:didal Di.slircf CoWf, HcuriS County Cau-,.e No. 2013~'16550

14. All documents including specificatiortil, general conditions and supplemental conditions generated by any party or other entity, describing the scope of work and/ or services (specifically including safety and demolition) to be done on the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in time or scope, is u:nreasonably duplicative, rq.etitive and burd~nsome a,nd it constitute$ a.rt impermissible fishing expedition. $1,lbject to and without wafyer of the foregoing olajections, please refer to the documents prodl,lced in response to Requests No. 2, 3 and 5 above; Additionally, please refetto the documents and things produced by Manhattan I Vaughn JVP in this cause of action.

15. AU correspondence between Lindamood and any other entil;)" involved with the Kyle Field renovation project that mentions job progress, sched'Uling, safety, hazard.identification or job,site hazards. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Reque$t to the eictent that it is overly broad, not limited in time or scope, is u11reasonably duplicative harassing and burdensome, and it constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Further objection Is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the sulzject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Lindamood further objects to this Request on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joil11'de{onse, aU;orney,client, and attorney work-product privileges. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the documents produced in response to Reql,lests No. 2, 3, 5 and 9 above. Additionally, please refer to the documents and things produced by Ma11hattan IVaughn JVP in this cause of action.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION. INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Pages Garcia - 80£/t Jur:Ucial Dist(rct Court, Har'rl:t Co14nf!/ cause No, 2013·16550

16. All documents related to the Kyle Field renovation project, which mention the methods and/ or SQhedule ()f performance of demolition work to be performed by Llndamood and its employees. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Re41Jest to tl1c extent that it is overly broli\d, not limited in time or scope, is unreasonably duplicative, harassing and burdensome, and it constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it $eeks the production of documents and things which 'Ire proprietazy and confidential. Moreover, Lindamood does not have •an document.a• requested above in its possession, custody· or control.

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the documents produced in response to Requests No. 2, 3, 5 and 9 above.

l 7. All minutes of Pre-Construction meetings related to Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that It is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of speclficily required under the 'l'exas Rules of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an J,mpel'lnillsible fishing expedition. Further objection i• made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of doC1.1ments and things that are not releva.(lt to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calcula~ to lead to the discovety of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the fo.regoing objections and to the extent any such non-privileged documents or things exist and are in Lindamood 's possession, custody or control, Lindamood will produce. Additionally, please refer to the documents and things produced by Manhattan IVaughn JVP in this cause of action.

18. All contracts issued by Lindamood related to the structural demolition scope of work being perfo;rmed on the northeast pedestrian ramp where the subject incident occurred on 12/3/2013.

LINDAMOOD DF)MOL!TION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS /\ND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 9 Garcia- 80th Ju~elal Dfstfrc« (:oun,. Harrlli·County Cau.s1J No. 201~76550

RESPONSE: Please refer to t)l.e contracts produced in response to Request No. 2 1>bove.

19. All correspondence and emails between Lindamood and any other entity involved wit)l. the Kyle Field renovation project related to demolition activities. RESPONSE: I,indamo.od objects to this Reque.st to the extent that It is unreasonably dupUcE!tlve, harasajng and. burdensome, it is overly broad, vagµe, not lintlted ~ time or scope, Jacks the degree of specificity requir<;:d Ul}der the Texas Rules of Civil Pt:ocedure, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expeditiol'\. Further .objection is made on the grounds that this reqµei1t seeks: the production of documents and things that are not relevant tp the subject matter of this ll;lwsuit and not relU'pnably c:alculated to lead to the discovezy of admissible evidence.

4indamo.od further ol;ljects to this ~equest to the e.xtent th.,.t it seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attomey-client, and attorney work•product privileges.

Subject to and without waiver 0f the foregoing objections, please refer to Response No. 3 abe>ve.

20. All documehts teflecting. responsibilities of Lihdamood employees related to performance or oVetsight of demolition activities. RESPONSE; Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited In time or scope, sel!ks the ptoduction of documentS and things ihat are. confidential and proprietary and not relevant to the subject matter of this a...use of action.

Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it lacks the degree of specillcity required under the TeJtas Rules of CM! Procedure and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Further objection is made on the grounds that the items sought are not reasonably calculated to lead to the diac0very of admissible evidence' Subje.ct to and -without wfilver of the foregoing objections, please refer to Responses No. 2, 3, 5 and 9 above.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, !NC.'B OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FORPRODUCTION Page 10 Oarcfa - BOth..JudiCial D(.stirct Court, Harris Countg Cause No, 2013~755.SO

21. All documents which show engineel'lltg sui:veys perforn;i,ed by any party ot entity, related to the dem.olitiop. of strUctural CQncrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, putsuant to OSHA 29 CFR l 926.850(a). RESPONSE: I,indamood objects to this Request to the· extent that it is overly broad, not !United in. scope, and the items sought are not described with the specificity required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Further objection to this Request is rtl,ade on tl!e grom;ids that it cop.stitutes l!.11 impermissible fii!'hlng expedition, and. the term "engineering SllJVeys• i.s unelear ;ui.d und~ned.

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, and after a diligent search and reason!lble inquiry, no responsive documents have been identified at this time.

22. All documentation .and correspondence discussing engineering surveys performed by any party or entity, related to the demolition of strucb,Jral concrete for the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.BSO(a). RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request t() the extMtthat it is overly broad, not !United in scope, !!,nd the items sought are not described with the .specificity required by the Texas. Rules or Civil Procedure. Further objection to this R11quest ia made .on the grounds that it constitutes an. impermissible fishing expedition, and the term "engineering surveys• ls unclear and undefined.

Subject to .and without waiver of theJoregoing objections, and after a diligent search !Ind reasonable inquiry, lW respansive documents· have been identified at this tim"'·

23. All documents reflecting qUalifications and training of persons who performed engilleering surveys related to the demolition of structural concrete on the Kyle Field renovation project, pursuant to OSHA 29 CFR 1926,SSO(a). RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that itis overly broad, not limited in scope, and the items sought a.re not described with the specificity required by the Texas Ru)es of Civil Procedure.

~INDAMOOD DEMOLITION, .INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND Rll;SPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 11 Garcia- Beth Judiclaf Dlstirct Court, Harris County Couse No. 2013·76550

Further objection to this Request is made on the grounds that it constitutes an impermissible fishing e!Cpedition, and the term •engineering surveys" is unclear and undefined. Subject to and without waiver or the foregoing objections, and after a diligent search and reaso.nable inquiry, no responsive documents have been identified at this time.

24. All documents reflecting qualifications and training of persons who operated equipmel}t (machinezy) fol' Lindamood. such as the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time of his death. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the .extent that It to the extent that it is overly broad, seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit and a.re not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovezy of admissible evidence. Further objection is made on the .grounds that· this Request constitutes an impemussible fishing expedition. Subject t6 and without waiver of the foregoing objection<!; Lindamood produces the Safety Trainlng for Operators of Skid Steer certificate issued to Angel Garcia by RDO Equipment Co. in May 2013. See LMD_000290.

25. All documents, details or sketches addressing the specific dimensions and scope of the demolition of the concrete structure being worked on by Angel Garcia immediately prior to the subject collapse that led to Mr. Garcia's fall. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the Texas A&M University Police Incident/Investigation Report previously produced in Lindamood's responses to Plaintiffs' RequestS for Disclosure, in addition to the documents and things produced by Manhattan IVaughn JVP jn this cause of action.

26. All documents reflecting observations by any party 6r person regarding the · nature of spalling (or failure) of existing concrete membe:i"!I of the northeast, spiral pedestrian ramp during demolition actiVities prior to the time of the subject incident.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 12 Garcia- BOth Judicial Disti7ct. Co1,1rr, Harris County Causer No; 20.13·76550

RESPONSE: After a diligent search and a reasonable lhqulry, no responsive documents have been identified at this time.

27. 1\11 documents showing i:n.:opections and inspection. results of the demolition activities being per!onned on the northeast spiral, pedestrian tamp. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the ext~t that it is overly broad and notJimited. in time or scope,

~d.amood further objects to this Request to: the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things acquired or developed subsequent to. the incident upon .which this suit is based arid which were made in connection with the investigation or in anticipation of the defense of the claims made in connection with this litigation.

Further objection is made on the grounds that thi$ Request seeks production of ·non•di.ac.overable m.atters relating. to sn e;cpert or consulting expert whose work pl'OdUct, opinions or impressiO!IS will not form, in whole or m part, a basil! Of t)J.e opinions of an el(Jlert who will testify at the trial of this cause. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, pl~se . refer to the . 'I'.e~s .A&M . University Police Incident/Investigation Report produced m Llndamood'I! Responses to .PlaintUl's' Requests for Disclosure. Moreover, Llndarnooll. refers. Plaintiff Garcia to docutnents and things produced by Manhattan IVaµghn JVP in t)1is cause of action.

28. All Job H~ard Analyses, Job S!l.{ecy AX\lliyses (~, JSA or similar such formal process) .done for the work activities of the demolition of strUctural concrete of the nartheast pedestrian ramp; including the specific work being done by Angel Garcia. · ·

RESPONSE: Lindamood objects.to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and not limited in tim.e or scope. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to documents produced in response to Request No. 9 above.

29. All documents and plans fQr temporary shoring to be -utilized during the demolition wqrk of structural concrete. Of the northeast pedestrian ramp, at the location of the subject Incident.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'$ OBJ.ECT!ONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUESl' FOR .PRODUCTION Page 13 Garcia - Both Judicial lJlstirci-Courl, Harri$ Coumy Cause NO. _;Ot3-7tSS50

RESPONSE: After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents have. been identified at tills time.

30. All correspcmdence, documents and emails between Lindamood and any other entity involved with the Kyle Field renovation project, reflecting the designati9?1 of a Competent Person proposed by Lindamood for the Kyle Field renovation project, as required by OSHA regulations 29 CFR l926.20(b)(2). RESPONSE: Attached am! marked LMD_000756.

31. All safety management or accident prevention prograrns, ·policies, manuals, safety-related rules and requirements for all work to be performed within the scope of the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamocid objects to this Request to the extent !hat it is unreasonably duplicative, harassing and burdensome. Further, Lindamood does .not have all such documents in its possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, p)ease refer to documents produced in response to Requests 3, 5 IUld 9 above.

32. All safety management or accident prevention programs, policies, m1U1uals, safety-related rules, etc. related to the Kyle Field renovation project, created or adopted by Lindamood prior to the incident which were required by the authority of Lindamood to be 'Utilized by subcontractors or others on the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamoop objects to this Request to the .e»tent that it is overly broad and not limited in time or scope. Subjectto and with01;1t waiver of the foregoing objections, .please refer to documents prodt\ced in response to Requests 3, 5 and 9 above.

33. All published requirements of any federal, state or local agency or any related standard of any national consensus standard promulgating organization, addressing requirements or recommendations for accident prevention and for the protection of employees or athers on site With which Lindamood acknowledges they or others under the authority of Lindamood Were to comply or operate on the Kyle Field renovation project on the.date of the incident. RESPONSE: Lindamood object$ to this Request to the extent that the documents requested may be derived or ascertained frol!l public records or a compilation of business records, the

LINDAMOOD DEMOLJTION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION P~ge 14 Gwcia- 80th J1.1dldal Dl81trct Court, Harris County Cause No. 20J 3k76SSO

burden of which is substantially the satne for Plaintiff Garcia as it ls for Lindamood. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit .and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 'evidence.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request constitlites an impennjssibie fishing expedition and attempts to require Llndamood to marshal evidence. .

Subject to and without waiver of the foregolng objections, Lindamood refers Plaintiff Garcia to the Occupational Safecy and Health Administration laws and regrtlations found at www.OSHA.gov.

34. All documents reflecting statements by employees of Lindamood or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation .Project site describing the incident in question. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is not limited in time or scope and it seeks the production of documents or tbings .deVeloped subseqj.ient to the incident upon which this suit is based and that were made in connection with the investigation or in anticipation of the defense of the claims made in connection with this litigation. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the statement Daniel Berge provided to the US Dep~nt .of Labor on MarCh 26, 2014 marked LM0_000757-000758,

35, All documents reflecting statem,ents by employees of Lindamood or any other party on the Kyle Field renovation project .site describing the events leading up to the subject incident, or the incident itself. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is not limited in time or scope and it seeks the production of documents or thipgs developed subsequent to the incident upon which this suit is based and that were made in connection with the investigation or in anticipation of the defense of the plaims made in connection with this litigation.

LINDAMOOD OEMOI.!TION, INC.'$ OiiJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PWNTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQ\)EST FORPRODUCI'ION Page 15 Garnia - BOthJildldal °"''""'Court, a.,.,;,, County C•uU No. '013·76550

Lindamood further objects to this Requesno the extent that it is U.llreasonably duplicative, harassing and burdensome. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to Response No. 34 above.

36. All initial-employment safety orientation, any specific safety management or accident prevention training or seminars provided by Lindamood or by· any party, to employees of any <;oiltractor or subcontractor working on the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lin(!runood objects to this Request to the extent that it is unreasonably duplicative, harassing:, and burdensome, not limited in .time or ~pe, SJ:ld It constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Subject to and with<;1u~. waiver of the fQtegoing objections, please refer to the documents produced in response to Requeirts 3, 5 and 9 above, Additionally, please refer to. the documents and things produced by.Manhattan IVaughn JVP in this cause of. action.

37. All periodlc rep0rts of the progress of work perfol'nied on the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamood.objects tp this Request to the exto::nt th.at it is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of specificity r<:quired under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Further objo::ction is made on the grounds .that this request •eeks the prodU.ctfo)l of documents and things that l(te not relevant ·to the subject matter of thia lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the disc;ove.ry of admissible evidence,

Lindamood furt!ter objects to this Request to the extent that it is unreasonably dupliCative, harassing and burdensome. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objectiona please refer to the documents produced in response to Requests No. 5 and 6 abo'Je.

38. All reports of accide)lts, on the job injuries or accident statistics related to the Kyle Field renovation project.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'$ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 16 Garcia - 80Ut Judicllll Di.stirct Court, Harris County .Cause No. Qrf13-?6551J

RESPONSE: Lindamood ojijects to this Request to the extent th!!.t it ls overly broad and not limited in ti.me or scope. Lindamood does not have "all !'eports of accidems• i:elate.d to the Kyle Field Renovation Project in its possession, custody or control. Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and thiugs that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reas.onably calculated to lead to the dlscoveiy of admissible evid.ence. Sul:>ject to and witb,out waiver of tb.e foregoing objections, Lindamood prod1.1ces OSHA Forms 300 and 30 l that pertains to the Kyle Field RenovatioQ Project. See LMD_000759-LMD· 000760.

39. All records or minutes of periodic safety •toolbox" or "tailgate' meetings performed on the job site, dating from the commencement of demolition activities through i2/31/2013, with employees and/or with other contracte>rs or subcontractors e>n the Kyle Field renovation project, Including records of the topics discussed and attendance lists. RESPONSE: Please refer to the documents and things produced.in response to Requests No. 5 and 9 above, in addition to the documents and thi!lglj produced by MaQhattanlVaughn JVP in this cause of action.

40. All reports of the incident made by any party or person. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to .the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in scope, the it.ems sought ai:e not described With the specificity req11ired by the· rexas Rµlcs of CM1 Procedure, and it cpnstitutes an impermissible .(ishing expedition. Lindam9od further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things acqUired or developed subsequent to the incident upon which this suit is based and which were made in connection With the investigation or in anticipation of tho defense of the claims made in connection with this litigation. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of non-discoverable matters relating to an expert or consulting expert whose wotk product, opinions or

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC/$ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 17 Garcia - BOth Judicltd ~irrct Court~ HarrilJ Counly Cause No, aOJ3-·76550

impre&sions Will not form, in whole or in part, a basis. of the opmions of an expert who will testey at the trial of this cause. Further objectfon is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the Texas A&M University Police Incident/ lnvelltigation Report and the Travis County Medical Examiner's l'CPOtt pertaining to Angel Arizaga Garcia. previousfy produced in Llrtdamood's responses to Plaintiffs'·Requests fQr D!Sclosure. /\!so, please refer to the W<>rke.rs Comp reporting documents and Incident Report produced in response to Request .No. 1 above.

41. /\II schedules related to the Kyte Field renovation project, listing milestone dates, <iepicting the proposed progress of construction, sche<iufo• reflecting proposed progr~s.s for demolition activl,ties on the subject pedestrian ramp involved in the 11u't!iect incident. RESPONSE: I,indamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or soope, la<:ks the degree of speclfici1;y required under th!' Texas Rules of Civil Prpcedure, and constitutes an imp=issible fishing expediti?n. Further objection is made on the grounds that .this request seeks the production of docume]'1ts and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, pfoase refer to the Construction Schedule .. attached to the contract by and between ManhattanjVaughn JVP and Lindamood produced in response to Request No. 2 above.

42. All job-site safety inspection reports (dated from the start of construction of the I~·le Field renovation project through 12/31/2013).

RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that .it is unreasqnably duplicative, harassing and burdensome.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.;S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 18 Gmcl.a - BOd1. Judicial DisUrct C<:1w1, Ha.rrU County C®'e No. !I0.13·16550

Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that It ls overly broad, vague, not limited in scope and constitutes an Impermissible fishlng expedition. Subject to anti without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to Llntlamood's responses to Requests No. 5, 8 anti 27 above.

43. All checklists utilized on the lfyle Field renovation project .to assist in performance Qf job-site safety inspection efforts, and specifically, all such che91dists or documents which relate to or mention tl'lc subject of demolition, structural integrity or safety. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it ls overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas. Rules of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the produotion of documents and things that are not r~levant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not re~onab!y calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoinj! objection:;, please refer to the documents produced in response to Requestti 3, 5, and 9 above. Additiimally, please refer to the docµments and things produced by Manhattan IVaughn JVP in this cause of action.

44. All written procedures or requirements for the pre-qualification and selection of contractors or subcontractors for the Kyle Field renovation project. lU:SPONSE: Lindamood oqjects to .this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of docUm!lllts and things that are confidential, proprietary, not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit, and ,not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery Of admissible evidence~

45. All records of formal training given to any worker or employee (assigned to the lfyle Field renovation project prior to the subject incident), related to the methods and techniques of demolition activities, in general, and speciflcally, demolition of concrete structures.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITTON, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEsT FOR PRODUCTION Page 19 Garcia - 801h,.Judkla.l Distircl Court. lfeirrla Counlg Cause N"' 2013-76550

RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in scope, and is unreasonably duplicative, harassing and burdensome. Further objection is made on the grounds that the term "formal training" ls unclear and undefined. Subject to and without waiver of' the foregoing objections, please refer to Lindamood's response to Requests No. 9 and 24 above.

46. All reports generated as a result of the subject incident. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Requeet to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in scope, the items sought are not described with the specilicity required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and it eonstitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and tirings acquired or developed subsequent to the incldelrt upon which this suit is based and which were made ·1n connection with· the investigation or in anticipation of the ·defense of the claims made in connection with this litigation. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of non-discoverable matters relating to an expert or consulting expert whose work product, opinions or impressions will not form, in whole or in part, a basis or the opinions of an expert who will testify at the trial or this cause.

Further objection .is made on tbe grounds that this Request seeks .the production of documents llrtd things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney-cUent, and attorney work-product priVilegcs. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing o~ections, please refer to Response No. 40 above.

47. All OSHA reports or documents, iriolud.ing correspondence, related to the subject incident. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vagu.e, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of

JJNDAMOOD DEMOLlTJON, INC.'$ Oil.iECTIONS AND RE!SPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 20 Garcia- 80t1~Judicial Distircl C<Jurt Harris Count11 Cause No. 2013·16550

speclficlcy required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Further oQjection is ma.de on the grounds that thls request seeks the production ot documents and things that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calcuta.ted to lead to the discovefY of admissible evidence. I..indamood objects to thill Request to the eirtent that it ;s unreasonably duplicative, harassing and burdensome. Subject to and without w!liv.er of the foregqlng objections, please refer to Response No. 7 above.

48. All documents related to any investigation conducted as a result of the incident in qUC11tion.

RESPONSE: Lindamood .objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in scope, the items sought are not described with the specificity requited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and it constitutes an impennissible fishing expedition. Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request seeks the production of documents and things acquired or developed subsequent to the incident upon which this suit is based and which were made ,in c;onnection with the investigation or in anticip11tion of the defense of the claims ma.de iil connection with this litigation. Undamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks productiQQ qf non-discoverable m11tters relating to ah expert or consulting expert whose work product, opinions or impressions will not form, .in whole or in part, a basis or the opinions of an expert who will testify at the trial of this cause.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this Request se.eks the production of documents artd things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Suqject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, please refer to the Texas A&M University Police Incident/ Investigation Report and the Travis County Medical Examiner's report pertaining to Angel Arizaga Garcia previously produced in Lindamood's responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Disclosure.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITJON, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND RF:SPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 21 Qwcla- BOth .Judicial DisUrct Court Horris C<lunry Causo No. 2013~75550

49. Color copies of all photographs and videos taken of the scene of the subject incident, before and after the incident. RESPONSE: Lindamood produces photographs marked LMD_000761- 000776. Also, please refer to photographs produced ln response to Request No. 6 above.

50. All pictures and videos generated as a result of any inve!ltigation conducted after the incident ln question. · RESPONSE: Please refer to the documents produced in response to Request No. 6 above.

51. All videos and footage taken by the "construction cams" of the lfyle Field renovation project during the periQd of 11/1 j:2!)13 through 12/31/2013. RESPONSE: Please refer to the documents produced in response to Request No. 6 above.

52. All documents of the overall site plan reflecting the scope and layout of the lfyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not !imit;ed in time or ~cope, lac!(s the degree of specificity required under the Texas ll.ules of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the. production of documents. and thihgs that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admiilsible evidence. Subject to and .without waiver of the foregoing objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquity, no responsive docwmnts have been identified at this time.

53. All documents reflecting the name of each company or contractor present at the Kyle Fieid work site on the day Allgel Garcia was killed. RESPONSE: Lindamood oqjects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in time or scope, lac!(s the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil !>rocedure,

LINDAMOOD DEMOLlTION, INC.'S OBJECTION$ AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 22 Garcia .. 80th Judicial 1Jlstlrct Court, Hanis· COunig Cause Na. ~Ol3-'f655()

seeks the production of documents and thl!1gs that are not relevant to the Issues in this lawsuit and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it constitutes an Impermissible fishing expedition. Further, Lindamood does not know "each company or contractor present at the Kyle Field work site" on the date of the ib.cident.

Subject to 11.ild without waiver of the foregoing objections, Lindamood Demolition, Ind. and Texas Cutting & Coring LP were.,preeent at the time and location ofthe incident.

54. All documents rd!ecting the naml!s of every worker at the Kyle Field work site on the day Angel Garcia was killed. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit and are not reasonably calcul.ated to lead to the discovery of admisllible evidence, and it constitutes an impermissible f!llhing expedition. Further, Lindamood does not lmow the identity of "every worke.r at the Kyle Field work Site" that was present on the date of the incident.

55. All specifications, limitations, maxilllum weight loads or wBrnings provided with, or attached to, the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was killed. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it the inforl1lation sought for the Caterpillar. Skid Steer Loader is equally accessible online to PlaihtilI Garcia as it is for Lindamo.od.

56. The owner's and/ or operator's manual for the Caterpillar Skid-Steer Loader being operated by Angel Garcia at the time he was kille.d. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this .Request to the extent that it the information sought for the Caterpillar Skid Steer Loader is equally accessible online t6 Plaintiff Garcia as it is for Lindamood.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GAACIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 23 Oarcio.- BOth Judicfal Distirct :cot1rti, Hanis Qiunty Cause No. 2013-?655_0

Subject to l!lld without wajver of the foregoing objections, Lindamood will produce or make available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient date 1U1d time.

57. All structural integrity testing done on the ccncrete structure in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the day of the incident in question. This includes testing done prior to and after the exact moment when the Incident in question occurred. RESPONSE: Lindam1>od objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not limited in .time or scope, and leeks the degree of apecificity required underthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Furtlle.r objection is made. on the gro(lnds that this Request constitutes an impennissible fishing expedition, it seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the.issues in this lawsuit and are )lot reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ad~sible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, none.

58. All testing, engineering or otherwise, done on the concrete stru<;ture in the area where Angel Garcia was working on the dey of the incident in questlo!t, This includes testillg done prior to and after the exact tnoment when the incident in question occurred. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited. in time or scope, the term "otherwisew is unclear and undefined and therefore vague, and it lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. l!'urther objection is made on the grourtds that this Request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, It seeks the production of documents and things that ate not relevant to the issues b1 this lawsuit and are not reasonably calaulated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents or things developed subsequent to the incident upon which this suit ls based and that was made in connection with the investigation or in anticipation of the defense of the claims made in connection with this litigation.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 24 Garcia - 80th Jud(clol Dl.siirct Court, Sarria C®nry cauira No. ~13·76550

Fur.th~ objectiop is .made on the groupde that this Request seeks productjop of non-discoverable matters relatipg to an expert or copsulting expert whose work product, opinions or impressions will not fonn, in whole or in part, a basis of the opinions of an expert who wll1 testify at the trial of this cause.

59. All work plans for the specific work Angel Garcia was performing when he was killed. lUtSPONSE: None for the spepiflc work Lindamood understands Angel Garci<1 was perfonn~ at the time of the incident. ·0.therwise, please refer to the Demolition Plan and Revised Demolition Plan produced In response to Request No. 5 above.

60. All correspondence between defendants in this case anq any insurance company, rogarding coverage for personal injuiy or death claims, before the incidept in question. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, not limited in tiJne or scope, see}(s the production of documents and things that are not relevant to t:his cause .of action, It constitutes an impermis~ible fishing expedition, and the Items sought are not reaiionably i;a.lculated to lead to the discpveiy of admissible. evidence. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents. and things that are protected by the joint-defense, attorney.client, and attorney work-product privileges.

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, pl1,1ase refer to the insuranoo s.greements produced in Litid!llhood'$ responses to Plaintiff Garcia's Requests for Disclosure.

61. All correspondence between defendants In this cas.e and any insurance compahy, regarding coverage for perllonal injuiy or death claims, after the incident In question. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the eictent that it is overly broad, not limited In time or scope, seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to this cause e>f action, it ronstitutes an impermissible fishing expedition, and the items sought are not reasonably calculated to lead tp the discoveiy of admissible evidence.

LINDAMOOD DEMOUTION,!NC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RE$PONSES TO PLl\INTIFF GARCIA'S .FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 25 Gtucia - 8Dth Judicial Dlatin:t CoUrt; HCU'r'(a C041'nf!I Ci.ttis~·No. 2013·16550

Lindamood further objects to this ReCjuest to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things that are protected by the joiilt·defense, attorney-client, and attorney work-product pri\'llegea.

Subject to and without waiver of the 'foregoing objections, please refer to the insurance agreements produced in Lindamood's responsea to Plaintiff Garcia's Requests for Disclosure.

62. All correspondence between defendants in this case regarding the incident in question.

RESPONSE: .Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it IS overly broad, not limited in tilne or scope, seek" the production of documents and things that are not relevant to this cause of action, it cons.tltutes an impermissible fishing expedition, and tile items s9ught are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection is made on the l!l'ounds that it seeks discoveiy of documt)nts and things protected under the attorney-client cotnmunications pi'ivllege, joint-defense/party communications privilege. Otherwise, see documents pr(!duced by all other defendants herein.

63. All insurance reports regarding the Incident in question.

RESPONSE: Lindamood objects .to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not limited in fune or scope, lacks the del!l'ee of specificity required .under the Texas Rules .of Civil Procedure, and constitutes an impermissible fishing exped.!tion. Lindamood further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents and things acquired or developed subsequent to the incident upon which this suit is based and which were made in . connection with. the investigation and/ or in anticipation of the defense of the claims made in connection with this litigation. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing oQjections and to the extent any such non-privileged documents. (Ir things exist and are in Lindamood's possession, pUstoey or control, Lindamood will prpduce.

LINDAMOOD PEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS .AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 26 Oarcia- Both Judicial Dist,i'ct Cmirt; Harris County Cat.LS'O No; 3013·76550

64. AU (!ocuments retie<! up (sic]. or reviewe<'! by any person, entity or insurer, to generate a report regarcling the inci<'!ent in question. RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, not limited in time or scope, lacks the degree of specificity required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Constitutes an Jmperm!ss!hle fishing expedition. Further objection is made on the .grounds that this Request is unduly duplicative, harassing and burdensome. Moreover, this Request attempts to require LindllnlOOd to marllhal evidence.

Lindamood fUrtber.ohjects to this Request to the extent that it see)<s the production of documents iutd things acquired or developed subsequent to. the incident upon which this suit is based and which were µiade in connectiOn with the investigation and/ or in anticipation of the defense of the claiins made in connection with thJs litigation. LindlUllOOd further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of non,dJscoverable matters relating to an expert consulting expert whose work product opinions or impressions will not form, in whole or in part, a basis. of the opinions of an expert who will testify at the trial of this cause.

65. All permits obtained for the demolition work being performed as il part of the Kyle Field renovation project. RESPONSE:· No responsive documents have been identified at this time. Please refer to the documents and things produced by Manhattan IVaughn JVP in this eause of action.

66. All waivers of conflict signed, allowing representation of all Defendants by one law firm.

RESPONSE: Lindamood objects to this Requcist to tbe extent that it seeks the production of documents and things that are confidential, proprietaiy and protected by the joint-defense privilege.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this request seeks the production of documents and things that are not relevant to the . subject matter of this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery Of admissible evidence.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTlllF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION page 27 Garcia - Bath Ji.cdiofal Di.stirc:t. Coort, Hanis County Cau&! No, 2013-76550

. . _kt~~(w MICHAEi'.. A. MILLER State Bar No, 141 Q06SO mmiller@m!fpc.oom

THE MILLER LAW FIRM 1950 Turtle Creek Center 3811 Turtle Creek Efoulevard Dallas, Texas 75219 (469) 916-2552 (469) 916-2555 fax

A'ITORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.

CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE

l hereby certify that a true copy of Detenclant Lindamood Demolition, lnc.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Josefina Garcia, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Angel Garcia's First Requests for Production was served on counsel of record for Plaintiffs as inclicated below on th.e 30th day of April 2014.

Jason A. Gibson Jonathan D. Sneed Clifford D. Peel II THE GIBSON LAW FIRM 2050 The Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Houston, Te;11as 77002 Ilia CMRRI? 7013 1110 0001449(i7108

MiCHAEL A. MILLER

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJ.ECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Page 28 Garcia - 801h Judicio1Distlrcc Courl, Harris County Cause No. 2013·76950

CAUSE NO. 2013-76550 JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and. as Heir to the Estate of § ANGEL GARCIA, Deceased; and, § ORBEl,INDA HERRERA as § Next.Friend of ASHLEY GARCIA § and BRYAN GARCIA, Minors § § vs. § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; § MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC,; § MANHATTAN I VAUOHN JVP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING IP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORINO GP, INC.; § and, UNDAMOODDEMOLIT!ON, INC. § BOTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, WC.'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FmST SET OF 1NT£RROGA.TORl£S

TO: Plaintiffs Josefina Garcia, Individually and.as Heit to the Estate of Angel Garcia, Deceased by and through her counsel of record. Jason A. Gibson, Jonathan D. Sneed, Clifford D. Peel U of THE Oll!SON LAW FIRM, 2050 The Lyric C~tre, 440 Louisiana in Houston, Tex!Ul 77002.

Defendant Lindamood Demolition, Inc. (hereinafter ''Lindamood") submits its Objections and Answers to Plaintiff Josefina Garcia, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Angel Garcia Deceased's (hereinafter "Plaintiff Garcia")

First Set of Interrogatories, pursuant to Rules 192, 193 and 197 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL OBJEQTIONS Lindamood objects to Plaintiff Garcia's Fit11t Set of Interrogatories to the extent that they exceed the allowable number of written interrogatories as eaqh discrete subpart of these interrogatories is considered a separate interrogatory pursuant to Rule 190.3{b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. EXHIBIT

IT LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRS1' SET OF INTERROGATORllllS Pagel Oarcia .. BothJuditla.I Disfircr Coun,, Harrls_ Coumy_Cause No. 2013·76550

ANSWERS TO l?l'TERgOGATOIUES

1. Identity each person who answered these Interrogatories, who assisted in answering, or provided information upon which the .answers to these interrogatories are based. FQl" each person, please provide. the person's name, address, telephone number, and job title or position. ANSWER: Jake Lindamood, VP/Director of Operations of Lindamood Demolition, Inc., 2020 S. Nursery in Irving, Texas provided the answers to these lnteirogatories. He was assisted by counsel, Michael)\. Miller.

2. Please state what actions, if any, were taken to ensure Mgel Garcia was properly trained and qlJ,iillfied to do the work he was performfug on December 3, 2013. Please include in your response the person or entity responsible for training Angel Gw;cia, 11.nd whether Angel G1U;cia actllally received .training, prior to or in preparation for his work on the Kyle Field renovation project site. ANSWER: Defendant objects to use 1;>f the word 'ensure• as It implies certain duties or obligations that are not apPlicable t9 Defendant.· Defendant further objects to the extent ~ Interrogatory Is vague, not JjJnlted In time, l!!ld assumes facts not in evidence that Defendant had a duty to "ensure• b'aining for Angel Garcia. Subject to and without waiving the aforementiqned objections, Angel Garc.ia completed Safety 'l'tainlng for Operators of Skid Steer in May 2013 through RDO Equlpnient Co. in Irving, Texas.. He had worke!d.on a number of jobs. operating the skid steer on beltalf of Lin.damood and had successfully performed a number of similar operations at Kyle Field prior to the incident. He had received training by or throµgh Undamood ·prior to the iJ:icld~t on how to operate a skid steer, not overloading the skid steer, how to use a handsaw, jacl<: hammer an.4 many oth"r aspects of demolition such as fall protection, flagman tralnlng, and loading trucks. He also participated in safety meetings specifically discussing the Kyle Field Renovation Project. Further, Lindamood's Demolition Plan was discussed with Garcia and the other Lindamood crewmembers prior to the start of the Kyle Field Renovation Project. ·

3. Please identify all safety equipment and policies provided to Angel Garcia, or to be used for his safety and benefit, ior the work he was perfbnning at the Kyle Field renovation project site on December 3, 2013. ANSWER: Defendant objects to the Interrogatocy as vague and .overly broad as to •an safety equipment and policies," not limited in time, and

LINDAMOOD DEMQLIT!ON, INQ.'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO Pl'..A!NTtFF GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF IN'l'ERROGA'l'ORIES Page2 Owcia -80th. JIJ.dicfal Oi.slitd Co1,1:rt, Hartis Cotiltty CaU!a No. p013~76SSO

assumes facts not in evidence that Defendant had such a duty to provide "safety equipmeqt" and/ or "policies" to Angel Oarcia on the date in question.

Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objection, Defendant would state that Angel Oarcil!. was provil!ed with safety glasses, hardhat, a reflective/aafcty vest, glczyes, tace shields and ear plugs, and was requirer,\ to we!U" .reinforced steel•tped work ~~. He atteQded weekly toolbox meetings conducted at Llndamood's facilities as. well as oneite safety meetings conducted by the general contractor. Safety was always a topic that was included in the toolbox meetings. . Additionally, Linr,\amood reviewed the Job Safety Analyses With the. workers, including O~ia, prior to work beginning .at 'Kyle Field.

4. Please state what actions, lf any, were taken to ensure· the concrete being cut and/or shaved on December 3, 2013 WOUld be supported by the Caterpillar Skid Steer Loader operated by Angei Garcia on the morning of December 3, 2013. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being cornpound/mUltifa.rious and potentially !llisleading as worded and vs,gue as. worded. Subject to and without waiving the aforementioned objection, Defendant reviewed the proper demolition procedure for the activity in question on numerous occasslons With Plaintiff and observed him prior t\'.l the .incident demoing similar areas in the appropriate inanner. The itkld Steer Loader used by Angel Garcia was to deflect the concrete being cut away from the wall and lrito the basement.

5. Does Lindamood contend Angel Oarcia did or failed to do· anything that caused or contributed to the lajurles made the basis of his cla.ima against you in this lawsuit? If so, please explain yolfr s,nswer in detail, including a specific description of each act or omission you contend Angel Oarcia committed, and identify by name, address, and phone number each individual who you believe has any personal knowledge of any ·fact that you believe supports your contention. ANSWER: Discovery is in its infancy and lnvestigati6ns are ongoing. Linl';\amood ·hail not yet fully aecertaini;l.d what caused or. may have contributed to the decedent's iajurles. Further, Defendant objects to the extent this Interrogatory calls for a narrative answer and· therefore is over broad and harassing as worded.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES P8ge3 Cau•• Ooma - BOth Judloial Di&tlm Coil ... H"""' Caurily No. 2013·?6550

Suilject to and Without waiver of the foregoing,. it is Lindamood's understanding that Angel Garcia disobeyed Llndamood's policy and the Project's policy prohibiting. employees from working with dete<>tible levels of Illegal and Illicit drugs, including marijuana. Additionally, it is Lindamood'& understanding that Garcia was perfol'tlrlng his work at the time 6f the Incident contrary to his training and the procedures outlined !rt the Demolition Plan.

6. Does Llrtdamood contend any entity other than llngel Garcia did or failed to do anything that caused or contributed to the cause of Angel Garcia's in.Juries? If so, please list the entities which you contep.d caused or contributed to the incident and explain the basis of your eonte!ltion. ANSWER: No.

7. List all U.S. Health and Safety Administra!1011 ("OSHA") violations, investigations, citations, warning letters or reports lnvolvlrtg LindamoOd for the last ten (10) years regatding: falls, death!I, or the Improper on-site operation of .construction vehicles, including but not limited to skid steer loaders or demolition. ANSWER: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is OilerJy broad, it constitutes an lni.pormissible fishing eiepedition, and seeks information which is irrelevant to the issues In this lawsuit which is hot reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection is made on the grounds that the. burden of deriVing or. ascertaining the answer Is substantially the sanie for the Plaintiff as for LindamoOd. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections and pursuant to Rule 197.2(c) of the Texas. Rules of Civil. Procedure, please refer to the documents produced In responses to Plaintiff Garcia's First Requestfor Production.

8. Please identity any lawsuits filed against Lindamood 0r a subcontractor of Lindamood In the last ten (10) years involving a fall, the improper on·site use Of a construction vehicle, including but. ,not limited to a.kid steer loaders, demolition processes Qr falling concrete which caused. the personal Injury or death of an employee. ANSWER: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that seeks the disclosure of information that is overly broad, unduly

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page4 Garcia -BOU& Judi<:lal DtsUrat Coult, Harris County.CAU6fl' NO. ;ol3·?6S$0

burdensome, is made for the purpose of harassment or annoyance, and subjects Lindamood to unnecessaey expense. Further, the bur.den of deriving or ascertaining the Answer to this Interrogatory ls substantially the same for Plaintiff Garcia as It ls for Lindainood. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory ss seeking information that is neither relevant 11or reasonably cak;ulated. to lead to the dlscov11ry of ·admissible evidence. See 192.3 and 192.4, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subject to artd without waiver of the foregoing objections, Lindamood has 110 personal knowledge of lawsuits filed against its subcontractors. No other lawsuits have been filed against Lindamood.

9. Please state the approval process for the proposed demolition which occurred on December 3, 2013. Please include in your answer which entities pr0posed the approved .demolition process, the names of the people Involved in the approval decision, artd when the approval took place. ~S"WER: Lindamood objects to thll! .Interrogatory .to the elltent that overly broad and exceeds the scope of discovery by calling for a written, narrative response to matters which are more properly elicited in the question-and-answer format o! an oral deposition. Further, the term "approval process• is vague, ambigm>us and undefllled.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks the diiiclosure of trade secrets and proprietary information, and constitutes an im~sible fishing expedition. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Lindamood refers Plaintiff Garcia to· the contracts produced in response to Request No. 2 ab<lVe, in addition to the documents produeed in response t 0 5 above.

l 0. Please describe the portion of !he wall or structure which was being demolished. Please include In y0ur answer a description of the wall or structure itself, where the construction vehicle was in relation to the wall, how many engineers or workers werein the vicinity, and where exactly the concrete fell onto the construction vehicle, ANSWJl)R: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that overly broad, va&ue and exceeds the scope of discovery by calling for a written, narrative response to matters which are more properly elicited in the question-and-answer format of an oral deposition.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'§ OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 5 Uafeia ... BOrhJudicia_l Dktirct Court, HCll'rV Co~nty Qtua1 No. 2013-76550

Subject to and without wiilver of the foregoing objections, please re!et to the lncident/InveStig!ltion Roport prepated by the Texas A&M Unlversl1;y Police. FUrther,. Linda.mood is not aware of any concrete falling on to the Skid Steer that was being operated by Mr. Garcia at the: time of the Incident.

11. Please describe any structural testing which was performed on Kyle Field and the area where Angel Garcia was working, b"fore the Incident occurred on December 3, 2013. Please Include in your answer the type and form of structural testing, who oonducted the strUctuial testing, the dates the structural testing was performed, and the outcome of the structural testing. ANSWER: Lindamood has no personal knowledge on the structural testing that has been done at Kyle Field, to the extent any was done.

12. Please explain what actions, .if !lllY, Texas Gutting took to ensure that construction vehicles op~ratlng abov'e .the ground noor on the Kyle Field renovation project site were protected from falling off of the structure. ANSWER1 Lindamood is unaware of any Texas Ctittlng construction vehicles being Involved in the incident.

13. Please describe in detail the business structure of Texas Cutting fl?ld Its affiliates in relation to the Kyle Field renovation prqject. Please include ln your answer the contractual agreements and sub-contracting structure between Vaughn Construction, Inc., Manhattan IVaughn, JVP, Manhattan Construction Co., Lindamood Demolition. Inc., Texas Curb Cut, Inc., and Texas Cutting and Coring Group, inc. with regii.rds to the Kyle Field renovaticm project. ANSWER: Unlmown as to Texas cutting. As for Undamood,·Lindamood Is a domestic for-profit corporation doing business in Texas.

14. Please describe In detail any duties or rel!ponsibilities of any ~d that Texas Cutting and/or any of Texas Cutting's emp!Oyees ri:iay have had or assumed for any safety-related policies, procedures, studies, or programs that directly or indirectly applied to Lindamood Demolition, Inc. dunng tile ~yle Field renovation project. ANSWBR: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and ambiguous, and ex¢eeds the scope of discovery by calling for a written, narrative response to matters which ate more properly elicited in the question-and-answer format of an oral deposition.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC;'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST S)!:T OF INTERROGATORl.ES Page6 Garcia -BOth Judicial DL!tlrcl Cow1, Harris County Co.use No. 20l3·1dS5tf

Subject to and without waiver of the foreg()ing objections and pursuant to Rule 19'7.2(c) of the Texa11 Rules of Civil Procedure, please refer to the contract between Lindamood s.nd Te>!as Cutting & Coring LP, produced herein. Otherwise, Defendant Lindamood unde~stands that Texas Cutting was respon!Uble for the safety of their own employees working on the job site.

15, Please identify the persons or entities responsible for managing and/or conducting the cutting and shaving of concrete at the Kyle Field renQVation project site on De~ember 8, 2018. ANSWER: Linda!nood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad in, .tbat the time period in question I# not specified, and vague as the term "nuulaging" is not defi.ned, Subject to and without waiver of the foregolne objections, Lindamood and its employees were responsible for the demolition of the concrete in .'11lestion at the time of the accident. Lindamood had suboontra<ited the cutting portion of the work being done at th!!.t time to Texas Cutting & Coring LP.

16. Please identify the head safety d!rector(s) or person(s) in charge of safety for the Kyle Field renovation project site, including their official title and the name of their employer. ANSWER: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it i& overly broad, Vtlgtle M written and not limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, as for the dey in question by Lindamood: Jake Lind.a.mood, VP/Director of Operations Andy MCEivain, ~uperlntendent Lindamood Demolition, )ne.

l '7. Please describe aIJY investigations performed atler the Incident on December 3, 2018. Please Include in your answer the name and contact Information of the person or entJey who conducted th.e investigation,. when the investigation(&) occurred, and the 01.1tcome/results/findlngs of the lnvestJgation(s). ANSWER: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it overly broa.(i, not limited in scope, and ·exceeds the scope of discovery by calling .for a written, nwrative response to matte.a which are more

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S .FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 7 Gareia .. 80th Juab'.Cll Di.slim Court, Harris County Caus• Na. 2(J.13·76550

properly elicite(! In the questlon-an4-answer format of an oral deposition.

Further obj.ection is made on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks the discovery of matters protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product and joirtt defense privileges. Subject to and without w!Uver of the foregoing objections: Jtilke Lindamood, VP/Director of Operations Andy McElvain, Superintendent

Further, Lirtdiuliood understan(!s the Texas A&M University Police conducted an investigation. of the Incident in question. Further, pureuant to Rule 197.2(c) of the Texas Rulell of Civil Procedure, please refer to the lncldent/lnvestigation Re.port prepared by the Texas A&M University Police already produced herein' Lindamood. also understands that OSHA is conducting some type of Investigation, but as of this report has not completed any tjlpe of report.

18. Please state all reme<llal .actions taken after the incident me.de the basis of this lawsuit occum(!, lncludirtg but not limited to new safety policies and/or the im1tllllation ofsafe1;y equipment. ANSWER: Lirtdamood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that It exceeds the allowable number of written interrogatories pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:

Lindamood further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, not limite<l ln scope, it seeks in!Qrmatlon which Is irrelevant to the inues in this lawsuit and is not reasonably cal~ulated to lead to the discovery of 11.dmisslble eviden.;e.

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent It seeks information protecte(! by the attorney-client/attorney wcrk product privileges. ~ Rules 192,5, Texas Rules of Civil Procdure; Rules 503 and 407, Texas Rules of Evidence.

19. Please identif.Y all permits obtained for the demolition, expansion and/or renovation of Kyle Field, as It pertains to the work being done on or around the time Angel Garcia was killed. AMSWER: Lindamood objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it exceeds the allowable number of written Interrogatories putiluant

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF <;iARClA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGJ\TORIES Page8 Garcia - BOth Judtdal Di!JriTcl. Court HD1'1'13 ·eo"nfH Causit No. 201J.-,1d550

to Rule l 90.3(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and further because it is potentially misleading as written and therefore harassing. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, none.

20. Please identify eVeiy worker who has beeri injured on the job since the Kyle Field renovation project began, including a description of the injury and the date ofeach lnj).liy,

ANSWBR1 Lindamood objects to this Interrogatoey to the extent that it exceeds the allowable number of written interrogatories pmsuant to Rule 190.3(b)(3) of !he Texas Rules ot(11vll Proced~re.

Lindamood fu.rther. objects to this Interrogatory to the extent_ !hat it is overly broad, vague and not limited irt time or scope. Further, the burden of deriving or asceruiining the answer is substantially the same for the Plaintiff Garcia as for LindaIJ:lOOd,

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoittg objections, Lip.damood does nc;it)mow "every worker" who hi!.& been injured on the job since the Kyle Field renovation project began. Mr. Garcia was the only Lindamood employee injured on this project up until the time of the Incident in question.

21. The name of all trade l!.ssociatlons of which Texas Cutting is a member. ANSWER: LindamQod objects to this lnterrogl!.toiy to the extent that it exceeds. the allowable num'1er of written interrogl!.tories pursuant to Rule l 9Q.3(b){3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure;

Subject to and without waiver of t)te foregoing objections, Lindamood has no lmowledge of which trade associations Texas Cun!ng is a member.

22. Plc"9e identify the name of Angel Garcia's diteot supervisor at the time of his death, Including the name ofthe person's empl(iyer and their job title. ANSWE_R; Lindamood objects to this lnterrogatoiy to the extent thl>.t it exceeds the allowable number of written interrogl>.tories pursuant to Ruic 190.3(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subjeot to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Andy Mclmvain, Superintendent with Lindamood Demolition, !no. was Angel Garcia's imtnediate supervisor on December 3, 2013.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION; INC.'B OBJECTIONS AND ANSWER8 TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FJRaT 8ET OF INTERROGATORIES Page9 Garc4l- 80th. Jttdtcial Dl.sflrct Court1 #curia qoun1y Cause No. 20i3·765So

23. Please identify every person or entity (Including Insurers), to your lmowledge, that has participated in or conc\ucted an investigation regarding the incident in question.

ANSWER: Lindamood objects to this lnterrogatoiy to the e1Ctent that it exceeds the allowable number 0£ written interrogatories pursuant to Rule l 90.3(b)(3) of the Teicas Rules of Civil Procedure. Linde.mood objects to this lntertogatoryto the ell.tent that it overly broad, not limited in scope, and exceeds the scope of discovery by calling for a written, narrative response to matters which are more properly elicited in the question-and-answer fonnat of an .oral deposition.

Further objection is made on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks the discoverr of matters protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges.

Lindamood further objects t!> thl.il lntertogawrr on the grounds that it ill duplicative, burdensome, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer in connection with the Kyle Field Project ls·substantlally thi; same for Plamtifl' Garcia as for Lindamood.

Subject to and without wal'ver of the foregoing objectlcms, please refer to Answer No. 17 above.

MICHAELA. MILLER St!lte l\i&r No. 14100650 mmiller@tmifpc.com T!JEMILWR LAW FIRM 1950 Turtle Creek Center 3811 Turtlc Creek B011levard Dalla11, Texas 75219 · (469) 916-25!;2 (4691 916-25.55 fax

ATI'ORl'IEYS FOR DEFENDA!llT LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.

LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, rnc.•s OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 10 Garcia ... BOrh Judiclal .OWtll:ct COW1,.1Jwria Co14nty ~e No; ·aoJ3~'16$50

CltRTIFlCATE Oil' SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of Defenda.nt Lindamood Demolition, lnc!s Objections and Answers to Plairttift' Josefina Garcia, Individually and as Representative of the Estate Of Angel Garcia's First Set of lnterrogatorles was seived on counsel of record for Plaintiffs as indicated below on the 30th day of April 2014. Jason A. Gibson Jonath~ D. Sneed Clifford D. Peel II THE GIBSON LAW Fl~M 2050 The Lyric Centre

~i\~Nt/ 440 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Ilia CMRRR 70131710 0001 4496 71011

MICHAEL A. MILLER

UNDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pago 11 Owcia -80t'1 Judicial DUiUrct. Court, Harria Countv Couse No. 2013-76550

CAUSE NO. 2013·76550

JOSEFINA GARCIA, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Heir to the Estate of § ANGEL GARCIA, Deceased; and, § ORBELINDA HERRERA as § Next Friend of ASHLEY .GARCIA § and BRYAN GARCIA, Minors § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § J.T. VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC § d/b/a VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION; § MANHATTAN CONSTRUGTION CO., INC.; § MANHATTAN I VAUGHNJVP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING LP; § TEXAS CUTTING & CORING GP, INC.; § § BOTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT and, LINDAMOOD DEMOLITION, INC.

VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authoritY, on this day personally appeared Jake Lindamood, VP /Director of Operations, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing mstrument, and after being by me first duly swom upon his oath deposes and says tbat li.e is authorized to make this verification, that has reviewed the answers in the foregoing Defendant Ljndamood Demolition, lnc.'s Objections ancl Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of l11ierr<!gatoriel), and that said answers are wit:Jµn })is personal krtQWledge ancl 11-fe ~e and correct or are. based on his review of busineserecords and upon other irt o ation he beli . to· be reliable.

CINDY L. CHINN J61E S.;I'ATJJ; OF TEXAS. • Noto1v PubUC; _SfGt• of r~os My CoMmlSllon J;:xplr~S No\'tmber 13, 2016 0All>.Y t. &¥1 uAJ ~. ' ..' ' N'.•.T.ll:D·. /3, R'i'SP NAME t{p/Y? NOTARY COMMIS$ION ExPIRES

VERIFICATION TO LINDAMOOD'S ANSWERS TO .INTERROGATORIES Garcla - BPtli Judicial Distircf Court, Harris Cot;.ntg Causl!' No. 2013-'76550