Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AVI S. ADELMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-2579
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT and
STEPHANIE BRANCH, individually and in
her official capacity as a Dallas Area Rapid
Transit Police Officer,
Defendants.
On May 4, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff Avi S. Adelmans Motion to Compel
in its entirety, ordering DART to provide the responses and documents responsive to the
requests for production, requests for admission, and interrogatories set forth on page two
and to provide evasive and incomplete answers to discovery requests that the Court
already adjudicated in its May 4, 2017 Order. DARTs supplemental discovery responses
do not comply with the Courts Order, and Adelman, thus, brings this Motion to enforce
the Order. Adelman also requests expedited consideration of this Motion because (a) the
Court has already been adjudicated these issues; and (b) pretrial deadlines and scheduled
1
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID 317
ARGUMENT
This Court granted Adelmans Motion to Compel on May 4, 2017 and ordered
DART to answer several discovery requests and produce responsive documents. DART
failed to comply with the Courts Order with regard to RFP No. 18 and RFA Nos. 22, 23,
RFP No. 18. RFP No. 18 requested [a]ll documents relating to any prior DART
policies and procedures regarding photography and the right to photograph on DART
property, including but not limited to any policy that was in effect prior to July 1, 2014.
(App. 6.) DART stated in its supplemental response to this request that it has requested
and searched for documents related to this RFP and DART has no other responsive
documents. (Id.) But DART also continues to assert a relevance objection, despite the
Courts Order ordering DART to produce all responsive documents. (Id.) Because
DART continues to assert an objection, despite the Courts Order, Adelman cannot
Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 486-87 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (explaining that discovery responses
from determining whether documents are being withheld subject to the objection).
RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and 51. DART served evasive and non-responsive
answers to these requestswhich was the very reason Adelman filed his Motion to
Compel in the first place. (See App. 15-17, 19, 21-22, RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and
51.) After the Court ordered DART to supplement its answers to these requests, DART
2
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID 318
simply changed the wording of the answers without providing responsive and complete
responses. (Id.)
Submission Re: Plaintiffs Motion to Compel that DART submitted long after the
Courts Order. In the Submission, DART treated the matter like a discovery dispute
that had yet to be adjudicated by the Court, noting that DART agreed to review some
of its objections and responses. (Dkt. #27.) But there was nothing for DART to agree
to review, as the Court had already ordered DART to serve supplemental discovery
responses. In light of the Courts Order, DART was not free to stand on any objections
REQUESTED RELIEF
DART failed to comply with the Courts May 4, 2017 Order regarding RFP No.
18 and RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and 51. Adelman respectfully requests that the
Court again overrule DARTs objection to RFP No. 18 and order DART to either (a)
certify in writing that it has produced all responsive documents. With regard to the
Requests for Admission, DARTs failure to comply with the Courts Order has deprived
thus, requests that DART be prohibited from introducing evidence or argument at trial
relating to the subject matter of RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36, and 51, which include the
following topics: (a) whether Adelmans arrest was consistent with DARTs photography
policy; (b) DARTs training of its police officers relating to photography; (c) the
3
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID 319
circumstances under which DART police are permitted to issue criminal trespass
good faith answers to these requests, even when the Court ordered DART to do so. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). Alternatively, Adelman requests that the Court again
order DART to provide complete, non-evasive answers to RFA Nos. 22, 23, 26-29, 36,
Respectfully submitted,
4
Case 3:16-cv-02579-B Document 28 Filed 05/23/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID 320
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that, on May 11, 2017, I conferred with Gene Gamez, lead counsel
for DART, regarding the discovery that was already subject to the Courts May 4, 2017
Order. Mr. Gamez explained DARTs position with regard to each of the disputed
discovery requests, and then DART produced supplemental responses that did not comply
with the Courts Order. Plaintiff therefore submits this Motion as opposed.
s/ Tyler J. Bexley
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on May 23, 2017, the foregoing document was
submitted to the clerk of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the
electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) of the court. I certify that the document was
served on all known counsel of record electronically as authorized by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).
s/ Tyler J. Bexley