Answer/Response to Plaintiff's Proposed Device Protocol and Request for Preservation of Evidence - Answer/Response Index # 408 December 09, 2019 (2024)

 
Preview
 !" #$%!& ' (")$&*#+%" ,-. / ( 0 1 ( 22223+3+2223+4+3+2223+3+3+3+3+3+23+3+3+3+3+3+23+223+3+3+3+ ', 5 6,, 1 ( 0 5 7 5 &8 ( 7 0 5 ', 1 7 ( 5 :;< :7777777 777 7777<77<77<77<777777<77<77<777777 5, 6 ' ,9' 5 9 5 7 6 ' , 5, 5 7 1 ( = = = 5 > 5 5 COMES NOW, Sandra DiPretore, Individually, as Next Friend of Z.P., a minor, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Parmer, deceased, and as Heir at Law of Amberlyn Parmer, a deceased minor, and files this Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Proposed Device Protocol. I. BACKGROUND 1. On August 5, 2018, Defendant Ozark Motor Lines (“Ozark”), by and through their employee, Defendant Katelyn Sillavan (“Sillavan”), was operating a tractor-trailer east on IH-30 outside of Mt. Pleasant, Texas. Early in the morning, before sunrise, Defendant Sillavan parked the truck and trailer on the shoulder of the interstate and remained parked there for well over an hour. To date, the answer to the question of “why” she was parked on the side of the road has not been answered. 2. In the months leading up to the wreck, Defendant Sillavan had been involved in four different incidents, including one wreck. She was put on a month probation approximately six weeks before the wreck that killed Robert and Amberlyn Parmer. See Exhibit A, Ozark Driver Performance Listing OZARK 00526. 3. On Monday, November 19, Trooper McBride was deposed in this case. Trooper McBride was the Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement Officer who investigated the Ozark truck after the wreck. He testified that he did not see any warning triangles behind the Ozark truck at the scene of the crash, and that his understanding was Katelyn Sillavan was parked to stretch her legs. Trooper McBride was, unfortunately, unable to provide any reason as to why Sillavan was illegally parked for over an hour on the side of the interstate. 4. On July 11, this Court ordered the parties to submit their design protocols for review prior to expert evaluation of various electronic devices in this case. The Court limited the scope of the information obtained from the devices to 24 hours before the wreck, and 72 2 hours $!after ?@"the wreck. @$"A"#+, In &their @$" proposed BB!"8protocol, B@#% Plaintiffs % &@ ??! included %8"8a clause #%!"to@ allow %%Aall %% parties B@ "!to @look %+outside @! 8"of ?this @$ !proposed BB!"8time @ :"range &)"to@the @$"extent "C@"&@necessary &"#"!!to @understand &8"!@&8what 7$@ activity #@ D A!occurring @was ## &)on &the B$&"during @$"phone 8 &)the @$"96-hour E$@ time :"period B" 8specified !B"# by this F"8* @$ !Court. @, Defendants "?"&8&@!have$D"objected *G"#@"8to this!additional @@$ 88 @ &%language. %&))", II. , 1 AUTHORITIES 5. /, $"purpose The BB!"of ?discovery 8 !#D"is!to@seek !""+the @$"truth, so disputes @@$! 8 :be !B@"!may *"decided 8"# 8"8 * A$@the by what @$"facts ?#@!reveal, "D"%not 7$@the &@what @$"facts ?#@!conceal. Axelson, #"%,C"%!& Inc. , v. D, McIlhany, #%$&H- 798 ,7,8 550, S.W.2d // 555 /// (Tex.1990). I"C,J, All %% information &?:@ & is! discoverable 8 !#D"*%" so ! long %&) as! it@ is! “reasonably K"!&*%calculated #%#%@"8to @lead %"8to@the @$"discovery 8 !#D"of ?admissible 8: !! *%"evidence.” "D 8"",LTex. "C,R. ,Civ. D, P. ,192.3(a). ,IJ, III. , ARGUMENT 0 6. E, Plaintiffs’ % &@ ??!=proposed BB!"8language %&))"is!as !follows ?%%A!(emphasis I":B$! !added): 88"8J M, $""CB"@!#&@$"&B8#"@$""!%@ &)"B@!?:@$"?"&! #@%!? &@$ &)@! 8"@$"&)"?@A"&@?IMJ$!*"?"@$"## 8"&@@ !"D"&@@AIHJ$!?@"@$"## 8"&@@*@$B@ "!, $""CB"@!A %%&@ @ % N"&8@@! 8"@$"@ :"B" 8?@A"&@?IMJ$!*"?"@$" ## 8"&@@!"D"&@@AIHJ$!?@"@$"## 8"&@"C#"B@! !&"#"!!@ 8"@": &"A$ #$B):!&88@A""&& &)8 &)@$ !@ :"B" 8, 7. H, Specifically, B"# ? #%%Plaintiffs % &@ A ??!wish !$to @include %8"language %&))"that@$@will A %%allow @$":to %%Athem @ look %+outside @! 8"of ?the @$"proscribed B!# *"8time @ :"period B" 8if?it@ is! necessary &"#"!!to @ properly BB"%understand &8"!@&8 7$@programs what B):!were A""running, && &) and A$@data &8what A!*" 8@ was being &)transferred, @&!?""8 during 8 &)the @$" specified !B"# ? "8time @ :"period. B" 8, 3 8. Defendants have produced an affidavit from their expert to refute Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion that it may be necessary to examine data outside of the specified time period in order to cover those instances where software may have made a record of activity that occurred during the specified time period, but the software actually made the record outside the specific time period. Based on Defendant’s expert’s affidavit, there is an obvious disagreement as to how cell phone forensic technology functions. However, Plaintiffs have narrowly tailored the language in their protocol to only include the examination of time periods outside the prescribed window if it is actually necessary. Defendant’s claim that this is an attempt by Plaintiffs to “go on a fishing expedition” is unfounded given the narrow and limiting scope of the Plaintiffs’ proposed protocol. Plaintiffs’ language is necessary to ensure the information the Court has ordered be produced is actually produced in a comprehensible manner. Plaintiffs’ language specifically does not allow for data to be gathered outside of necessary information to determine what programs and data were running during the specified time period, and their version of the phone protocol should be adopted. 9. Further, Plaintiffs ask this Court for an order that Katelyn Sillavan’s cell phone and all data therein be ordered preserved in its entirety following its forensic examination. 10. At the time of this wreck, Katelyn Sillavan had a history of incidents while working for Ozark. Six weeks before the wreck made the subject of this suit, Katelyn Sillavan was placed on probation by Ozark. Ozark’s own disciplinary file 4 contains #&@ &:"!references &!numerous "?"""!to @dangerous 8&)"!behavior *"$D &the on @$"part B@of ?Katelyn '@"%&Sillavan %%D& over D"a short period !$@ B" 8of ?time. @ :", ( E- 8 D" ! & E :&@$! B*@ & "??"#@ D" @8 ? @$ ! 8 D" $! & B"D"&@*%" 8"&@! ## 8 "&@! $! # @#% "D"&@! & @$" B$&" !$" A *" @": &@"8 !$" &8"!@&8! @$ ! &8 $! B @"8 %"!!&! @ #:B%"@" G"$ 0 5 5 -E -/E ( ' ' -E/4 , -HE -/- 7 HEEM, , --M E- 1 0 M, , -E/ /-- 1 (< , , -/ -- ' 1 , , &&&& M ( , , 11. , 1"cell Her B$&" records #"%% phone "#8! from ?: the @$" days before 8! *"?" the A"#+ will @$" wreck A %% reveal "D"% portions B@ &!of ?her $"activities #@ D @ "!in &the @$"time @ :"leading %"8 Bto &)up @the @$"wreck. A"#+,Exactly 7$@she C#@%what A! !$"was doing 8 &)in&the @$"hours $!leading %"8 Bto &)up @the A"#+could @$"wreck *"#:"crucial #%8become ## %evidence "D 8""as!ongoing &) &) discovery 8 !#D" reveals "D"%! the@$" still !@ %% undisclosed &8 !#%!"8 reason "!& she A! illegally !$" was B+"8 in& the %%")%% parked @$" ":")"lane emergency %&"of?the @$"interstate &@"!@@"for?over D"an&hour. $, 12. , Plaintiffs % &@ ??!believe *"% "D"that @$@information &?:@ &about A$@programs *@what B):!were A""active #@ D"in & the @$"days 8!before *"?"the@$"wreck, A"#+particularly B@ A$@programs #%% what B):!were A""active #@ D"while A$ %"Katelyn '@"%& Sillavan %%D&reported "B@"8she A!sleeping, !$"was !%""B &)could #%8be *"directly 8 "#@%relevant "%"D&@to @the @$"reason "!&she A! !$"was pulled B%%"8over &the D"on @$"interstate. &@"!@@", 13. , This $ !information &?:@ &is!likely % +"%relevant "%"D&@to @this @$ !case, &8Plaintiffs #!"and % &@ ??!anticipate &@ # B@" the &""8to @$"need @revisit "D ! @Katelyn '@"%&Sillavan’s %%D&=!cellular B$&"once #"%%%phone "discovery 8 !#D"in&this @$ !case $! #!"has progressed B)"!!"8further. ?@$", IV. 5, PRAYER Plaintiffs % &@ ??!pray Bthat @$@this @$ !Court @will A %%order 8"the @$"utilization @ % N@ &of ?their @$" protocol, B@#%will A %% 5 order 8"that @$@Katelyn '@"%&Sillavan’s %%D&=! cell B$&"be #"%% phone *"preserved, B"!"D"8 and &8for ? any &other @$"relief "% "?in& A$ which#$they :*" @$"may be entitled. "&@ @%"8, Respectfully "!B"#@?%%submitted, !*: @@"8 ________________________ Robert *"@L.,Collins %% &! Texas "C!Bar(No. ME- ,04618100 &8"A Andrew B. (,Millar %% Texas "C!Bar(No. M/- ,24095082 Robert *"@Collins %% &!&OAssociates !!# @"! P.O.,Box (C7726 HHE Houston, 1!@&Texas "C!77270-7726 HHHHHE (713) IHJ467-8884 MEH---M (713) IHJMEH---Facsimile 467-8883 #! : %" :P *"@ 1 Firm@RobertCollinsLaw.com&!A,#: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR 5 SANDRA DIPRETORE 1 AS HEIR 7OF AT LAW ( AMBERLYN PARMER, DECEASED MINOR 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 9th day of December, 2019, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Proposed Device Protocol and Request for Preservation of Evidence was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, hand delivery, e-service and/or facsimile to the following: Paul M. Boyd Kevin C. Giddens Boyd & Boyd 1215 Pruitt Place Tyler, Texas 75703 pboyd@boydlawtexas.com kgiddens@boydlawtexas.com H. Kent Twining Gwen E. Richard R. Brandon Mullen McKinney Taylor, PC Three Riverway, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 713-487-1487 713-487-1488 twining@mckinneytaylor.com richard@mckinneytaylor.com mullen@mckinneytaylor.com Stephen C. Maxwell Daniel P. Sullivan Baily & Galyen 1300 Summit Ave., Suite 650 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 smaxwell@maxlawyers.com dsullivan@galyen.com David M. Nix The Nix Law Firm 1401 Holliday, Suite 400 Wichita Falls, Texas 76301 dnix@thenixlawfirm.com efile@thenixlawfirm.com Brian D. Garner Bradley D. Newberry 7 !$%%,( 8)"! $"A ?? #"!?( &,0&" -"# @ &" 8 @" %%"D %%""C!HEM "!"D #"P!%%8!,#: "*"## ,("%% "*"## ,("%% , H ,%%!+A@"/H %&H/ "*"##*"%%B#P@%+,#: !@&@&P#!@ %%A,#: @"D"& , 8 "C!( ,H/MM "@$,# %!+" "C!( ,MHH A ?F#"! ?@"D"& , 8 , "&&!%D& D"&" @7@$"C!HEM F "%"B$&"-H/ #! : %"-H- !"D #"@"C%A"!,#: ( , 

Related Documents in Tarrant County