Continental Casualty Company v. Angelet-Frau et al

RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to Compel

D.P.R.February 20, 2019

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO CIVIL NO. 16-2656 (JAG) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOCKET 188] TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW defendant Luis A. Angelet Frau and, through the undersigned attorney, very respectfully STATES and PRAYS: 1 Last Friday, February 15th, plaintiff moved the Court to compel discovery, pursuant to what it conveys to be inadequate responses by appearing defendant, Mr. Angelet. [Docket 188] In essence, plaintiff’s motion to compel conveniently characterizes Mr. Angelet’s responses as inadequate, when, in reality, what it should have openly stated is that the answers are just contrary to its litigation strategy and economic interests in the case. As further expounded below, plaintiff’s motion to compel is procedurally inappropriate and substantively unsupported. That is, on the one hand, its blanket claims (self-servingly anchored in the interests “brevity” and “judicial economy” [Docket 188, ¶10]) are devoid of any specificity or articulated development that would enable all, including the Court, to tackle the issue without having to ferret through the documentation. (Not even the questions at issue are to be found.) On the other, the answers submitted by Mr. Angelet [Docket 188-1 & 188-2] are in fact entirely compliant and, if what CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY Plaintiff v. LUIS A. ANGELET FRAU, ET AL Defendants Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 31 2 plaintiff desires is a follow-up inquiry, an unsubstantiated motion to compel is not the appropriate way to proceed; particularly, when Mr. Angelet is expected to be orally deposed. 2. At the outset, it bears to mention that a similar controversy arose from plaintiff own answers to Mr. Angelet’s Request for Admissions. [Docket 75, 82, 88 & 127] Yet, contrary to plaintiff’s motion to compel in this instance, when Mr. Angelet moved the Court almost two (2) years ago, he did it with exactitude and specificity, so there would be no need to ferret through the record. [Docket 75 & 88] In addition, and perhaps more important, the position taken then by plaintiff regarding its own answers [Docket 82] is inconsistent with what it now advances in the motion to compel. See, Alternative System v. Synopsys, Inc., 374 F.3d 23, 32-33 (1st Cir. 2004) (The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a litigant from pressing a demand that is inconsistent with a position taken by that litigant in an earlier phase of the same legal proceeding.”) 3. Specifically, the basis for plaintiff’s objections now, which ultimately is that Mr. Angelet’s answers advance his defenses in detriment of plaintiff’s pre-planned litigation strategy, was then used in the opposite direction by plaintiff arguing that Mr. Angelet’s disagreement with plaintiff’s answers did not amount to insufficiency in its responses. [Docket 82, p. 1-2] In fact, plaintiff explicitly asserted then that “…simply because [plaintiff’s] answers [did] not align with defense strategy”…“does not mean that they were insufficient responses provided by Plaintiff. It is improper for [Angelet] to essentially be asking the Court to order that Plaintiff answer the discovery requests in such a way that Plaintiff admits [Angelet’s] defenses.” [Docket 82, p. 8-9] Clearly, plaintiff’s very same reasoning outlined above holds true today and so, in addition to the current motion’s lack of specificity or articulated development, the same is unsound and unjustifiable. To paraphrase what plaintiff suitably contended back in May, 2017, with respect to its own answers, simply because Angelet’s answers do not align with plaintiff’s strategy, that Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 31 3 does not mean that they were insufficient responses. It is improper for plaintiff to essentially be asking the Court to order that Mr. Angelet answers the discovery requests in such a way that he compulsorily admits liability and/or surrender his defenses. 4. Now, besides the aforementioned, the answers submitted by Mr. Angelet [Docket 188-1 & 188-2] are entirely compliant and plaintiff’s motion to compel is substantively unsupported. Simply put, Mr Angelet’s answers and the specific reply to each of the twenty (24) objections raised by plaintiffs [Docket 188-6], as they were distinctively submitted by counsel [Docket 188- 3], dooms plaintiff’s convenient pray for relief in its motion to compel. Although plaintiff’s motion to compel should have included the specifics of each discovery request at issue for the Court’s assessment (the question, the answer, the objection, and the reply), plaintiff instead chose to literally sandbag the undersigned (and the Court) with an unmanageable motion that, as the accompanying strenuous undertaking will show, warrants its denial, together with the imposition of costs and fees in favor of Mr. Angelet. To be precise, adjunct to this motion, Mr. Angelet, while the non-moving party of the motion to compel, will present all the relevant information in a coherent manner to enable the Court’s well-informed assessment of each individual request at issue. In the end, as the accompanying chronicle will show, Mr. Angelet’s answers are entirely compliant and plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied. WHEREFORE, appearing defendant, Luis Angelet Frau, Esq., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to take notice of the aforementioned and to DENY plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket 188], taxing costs and fees in favor of Mr. Angelet, with any further relief deemed just and proper under the law. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 20th day of February, 2019. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 3 of 31 4 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that, on this same date, the foregoing document has been electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. CÓRDOVA MORALES 220 Domenech Avenue, PMB 255 San Juan, PR 00918 Phone (787) 302-0163 Fax (787) 302-0164 ncordova@cordovamorales.com s/Nelson N. Córdova Morales Nelson N. Córdova Morales USDC-PR 220111 Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 4 of 31 5 PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Identify all persons you propose to use as witnesses in the trial of this case, and/or who have knowledge or information regarding to the allegations set forth in Amended Complaint and your Answer to the Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all law firms, associates, partners, paralegals, assistants and other employees, agents, and/or workers who in any way assisted with your work and services in the BJNP Litigation. Please state as to each such witness and/or person the nature and substance of his or her alleged knowledge, the nature and substance of his or her anticipated testimony, and her/his/their role in the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 4 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The question is overly broad and the response required is exceedingly burdensome. Additionally, the information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, potential witnesses include the individuals identified in the preceding answer, but their presentation as such during trial and the scope of their intended testimony will be determined as discovery progresses. Ultimately, any and all witnesses identified during discovery that may attest as to plaintiff’s lack standing to prosecute the claim against me, plaintiff’s lack of a plausible claim and/or entitlement to relief from me, and regarding the fulfilment of all my obligation before my clients CMA and engineer Fernández will be called and requested to testify as to that. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 [Docket 188-3] Interrogatory No. 4 – This request sought information on the identities of all legal staff assisting Defendant in the BJNP Litigation. Defendant’s response was evasive and nonsensical based on the question being asked. As Defendant’s own counsel is seeking depositions of legal staff who took over the case from Defendant, it follows that information pertaining to the legal staff assisting Defendant during his work and services is also discoverable. Please identify all legal staff, including all attorneys and support staff, who assisted Defendant with his work in the BJNP Litigation. If there was no one at all assisting Defendant, please amend the response to correspond with Defendant’s response to Interrogatory No. 10, which states that Defendant never had legal support staff assisting him on the case. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT INTERROGATORY NO. 4 [Docket 188-6] There is nothing to supplement and, regrettably, the purported evasiveness of defendant’s answer seems to be an unadorned attempt to manufacture a discovery dispute. The answer to Interrogatory No. 3, which broad scope encompasses Interrogatory No. 4, provides the identity of over a dozen individual that, based on Mr. Angelet’s current first-hand recollection, may have knowledge or information regarding the allegations in plaintiff’s operative pleading. Moreover, as explicitly recognized in your January 11th communication, the answer to Interrogatory No. 10, which specifically deals with the subject matter of your objection, unambiguously provides the information plaintiff now seeks regarding the assistance defendant Angelet recalls receiving in his works as counsel for CMA and engineer Fernández in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. Likewise, the answer to Interrogatory No. 18 unambiguously provides a complete answer to the objected response. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 5 of 31 6 PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 7 State if you have ever been diagnosed and/or undergone any medical procedure and/or treatment, including but not limited to behavioral treatments, medications, support groups, doctor care, clinical care, detox program, inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation, counseling, in patient and/or outpatient treatments, and/or any other medical treatment or procedures, for any medical, mental or emotional condition and/or substance abuse of any kind from the start of the BJNP Litigation until the present date. If so, please state: (a) the nature and extent of any such condition and corresponding procedure and/or treatment, including but not limited to treatments such as behavioral treatments, medications, support groups, doctor care, clinical care, detox program, inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation, counseling, in patient and/or out patient treatments, and/or any other medical treatment or procedures; (b) the date of any such treatment(s) and/or procedure(s) from the start of the BJNP litigation until the present date. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 7 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The question calls for private personal information not relevant to the claims and defenses pleaded in the matter. Additionally, the question is an unjustified bid aimed at harassing and embarrassing the responding party without cause. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 [Docket 188-3] Interrogatory No. 7 – This discovery request, as well as its related document request in Request for Production No. 3, is both relevant and proportional. During critical times in 2012 when the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in the underlying BJNP Litigation and extensions were sought for the opposition thereto by Defendant, the documents produced to date suggest Defendant was experiencing health and/or medical issues that may have prevented him from fulfilling his professional obligations and timely responding to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Attached hereto are some of these documents previously produced by Plaintiff. For example, the letter from Co-Defendant Vilella dated September 5, 2012 refers to Defendant having “recently taken ill” during a critical time when he was also asking the court for an extension to respond to Summary Judgement, while at the very same time telling Plaintiff’s representatives in other emails seeking to have bills paid that he was on vacation for the better part of August 2012 and had been unable to report to Plaintiff. Clearly, whether Defendant was experiencing a health issues, a medical condition and/or undergoing treatment that affected his ability to act in the underlying case is not only relevant but proportional to the case, wherein one of Plaintiff’s major claims of malpractice is failure to oppose the Summary Judgment Motion. What is more, Defendant’s written response to this question does not state “none” or otherwise indicate he was not undergoing treatment or did not have a medical condition and, as such, Plaintiff requires an actual response to these inquiries. Lastly, if there are any concerns about the information being disseminated, the parties have a confidentiality agreement in place pursuant to which Defendant can identify and produce this information and materials. Case ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT INTERROGATORY NO. 7 [Docket 188-6] Defendant Angelet stands behind and reiterates his objection. Moreover, contrary to the assertions in your January 11th communication, there were no documents attached thereto. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 6 of 31 7 PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 11 State with specificity all the facts and/or grounds that you believe support affirmative defense number 3 of your Answer to the Amended Complaint. Provide a copy of any and all documents that support your answer to this interrogatory. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 11 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Additionally, the question calls for a legal conclusion beyond the scope of factual discovery. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, I represented only the interests of CMA and engineer Fernández in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. It was only with them that I had an attorney-client relationship that would prompt an actionable duty of any kind. Consequently, it is only them who may have standing to prosecute an action challenging my professional work and/or who may be indispensable as the real party in interest. See, Puerto Rico Canons of Professional Conduct; Colegio Mayor de Tecnología v. Rodríguez Fernández, 2016 WL 687102 (A claim for legal malpractice requires the preexistence of an attorney-client relationship between claimant and respondent.) Ortiz v. Solivan Miranda, 1988 WL 580849. (Attorney for an insured is ethically bound to protect the interests of the insured, notwithstanding the interests of the insurer.); Seda Delgado v. De Jesús Reyes, 2018 WL 3855145 (A claim for monetary relief against an attorney, with whom claimant had no attorney-client relationship, cannot be based on the alleged breach of an ethical duty.) PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 12 State with specificity all the facts and/or grounds that you believe support affirmative defense number 4 of your Answer to the Amended Complaint. Provide a copy of any and all documents that support your answer to this interrogatory. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 12 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Additionally, the question calls for a legal conclusion beyond the scope of factual discovery. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statutes of limitations and/or laches inasmuch as the case was filed over a year after its accrual, June 17, 2015, without justification and with no intervening extrajudicial tolling. See, Concilio de Salud Integral v. Feldesman, Rucker, Leifer, Fidell, LLP., 2018 WL 1183674 (Legal malpractice claims are to be prosecuted under the one- year statute of limitations, regardless of whether there was a contract between the parties or not.); Colegio Mayor de Tecnología v. Rodríguez Fernández, 2016 WL 687102 (In a claim for legal malpractice the client has one year to raise a liability claim against his attorney from the moment he learns of the firm and final decision in the litigation wherein the negligence is being attributed to his legal representative; it is at that point in time that the necessary elements are present to exercise the judicial action.) OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 & 12 [Docket 188- 3] Interrogatories Nos. 11 & 12 – As set forth above, Plaintiff has a right to conduct discovery of the Affirmative Defenses that Defendant bas pleaded in his Answer to the Amended Complaint, Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 7 of 31 8 which includes all non-privileged information and facts supporting the bases for such Affirmative Defenses. Defendants responses to these Interrogatories are evasive and nonsensical and provide no support or facts for the pleadings by Defendant. Plaintiff requests that Defendant amend its response or withdraw Affirmative Defenses Nos. 3 and 4 in its Answer. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT INTERROGATORY NO. 11 & 12 [Docket 188- 6] There is nothing to supplement and, once more, the purported evasiveness of defendant’s answer seems to be an unadorned attempt to manufacture a discovery dispute. As you know, Mr. Angelet doesn’t hold his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. Yet, more importantly, the issues raised in affirmative defenses number 3 and 4 have been disputed since the inception of your client’s claim. To be sure, Mr. Angelet only represented CMA and engineer Fernández in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA and, under Puerto Rico law, a claim for legal malpractice requires the preexistence of an attorney-client relationship between claimant and respondent; which, again, in this case, didn’t exist. In addition, even assuming that plaintiff has an actionable claim against Angelet and there is no indispensable party missing, in a claim for legal malpractice under Puerto Rico law, the client has one year to raise a liability claim against his attorney from the moment he learns of the firm and final decision in the litigation wherein the negligence is being attributed to his legal representative. In this case, plaintiff originating pleading was filed over a year after the judgment attaching liability in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA became firm and final, and your client knew about it. As stated in the opening lines of this communication, I will separately provide you all the governing caselaw; including, Concilio de Salud Integral v. Feldesman, Rucker, Leifer, Fidell, LLP; Colegio Mayor de Tecnología v. Rodríguez Fernández, 2016 WL 687102; Ortiz v. Solivan Miranda, 1988 WL 580849; Seda Delgado v. De Jesús Reyes, 2018 WL 3855145. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 8 of 31 9 PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 13 State with specificity all the facts and/or grounds that you believe support affirmative defense number 5 of your Answer to the Amended Complaint. Specifically explain how is it that CCC “assumed the risk” or its alleged negligence contributed to the damages claimed in its complaint. Provide a copy of any and all documents that support your answer to this interrogatory. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 13 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Additionally, the question calls for a legal conclusion beyond the scope of factual discovery. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, insurance carriers accept the risks of their insureds in exchange of a premium. As a result, under Puerto Rico law, insurers have protect their insureds’ interests in good faith and their negligent failure to act accordingly exposes them to liability. See, Morales v. Automatic Vending, 1975 WL 38864 (Based on the nature of the relationship between insurers and insureds, an insurer has to act in good faith and protect the insured’s interests. Hence, if they refuse to settle within policy limits, they do so at their own peril.) PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 14 State with specificity all the facts and/or grounds that you believe support affirmative defense number 8 of your Answer to the Amended Complaint. Provide a copy of any and all documents that support your answer to this interrogatory. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 14 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Additionally, the question calls for a legal conclusion beyond the scope of factual discovery. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, insurance carriers accept the risks of their insureds in exchange of a premium. As a result, under Puerto Rico law, insurers have protect their insureds’ interests in good faith and their negligent failure to act accordingly exposes them to liability. See, Morales v. Automatic Vending, 1975 WL 38864 (Based on the nature of the relationship between insurers and insureds, an insurer has to act in good faith and protect the insured’s interests. Hence, if they refuse to settle within policy limits, they do so at their own peril.) OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 & 14 [Docket 188- 3] Interrogatories No. 13 & 14 – These Interrogatories sought information and facts in support of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 5 and 8, respectively, and Defendant’s responses were evasive and nonsensical. Defendant provided various statements in response about insurance carriers assuming risks for premiums, statements which have no bearing or relation to the actual defenses that were pled. Plaintiff requests that Defendant amend its response or withdraw Affirmative Defenses Nos. 5 and 8. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT INTERROGATORY NO. 13 & 14[Docket 188- 6] Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 9 of 31 10 There is nothing to supplement and, as in the case of the previous objection, I will separately provide you all the governing caselaw; including, Cooperativa v. Oquendo Camacho, 2003 WL 24290906; SLG Morales v. Automatic Vending, 1975 WL 38864. In the former, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that, under Puerto Rico law, the assumption of risk by an insurer in exchange of the premium charged is a principal element of the insurance agreement and, in the latter, the Court ruled that an insurer has to act in good faith and protect the insured’s interests so, if they refuse to settle within policy limits, they do so at their own peril. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 10 of 31 11 PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 15 State with specificity all the facts and/or grounds that you believe support affirmative defense number 12 of your Answer to the Amended Complaint. In your response specifically identify to what “third parties” you make reference to and explain in what way are the damages claimed in CCC’s complaint attributable to these “third parties.” Provide a copy of any and all documents that support your answer to this interrogatory. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 15 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Additionally, the question calls for a legal conclusion beyond the scope of factual discovery. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, I represented only the interests of CMA and engineer Fernández in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. It was only with them that I had an attorney-client relationship that would prompt an actionable duty of any kind. Consequently, it is only them who may have standing to prosecute an action challenging my professional work and/or who may be indispensable as the real party in interest. See, Puerto Rico Canons of Professional Conduct; Colegio Mayor de Tecnología v. Rodríguez Fernández, 2016 WL 687102 (A claim for legal malpractice requires the preexistence of an attorney-client relationship between claimant and respondent.) Ortiz v. Solivan Miranda, 1988 WL 580849. (Attorney for an insured is ethically bound to protect the interests of the insured, notwithstanding the interests of the insurer.); Seda Delgado v. De Jesús Reyes, 2018 WL 3855145 (A claim for monetary relief against an attorney, with whom claimant had no attorney-client relationship, cannot be based on the alleged breach of an ethical duty.) PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 16 State with specificity all the facts and/or grounds that you believe support affirmative defense number 15 of your Answer to the Amended Complaint. In your response specifically identify what alleged “legal and contractual obligations” CCC did not comply with. Provide a copy of any and all documents that support your answer to this interrogatory. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 16 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The information demanded is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or not discoverable as attorney work product. Additionally, the question calls for a legal conclusion beyond the scope of factual discovery. Albeit the aforesaid objections and reserving the right to supplement, I represented only the interests of CMA and engineer Fernández in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. It was only with them that I had an attorney-client relationship that would prompt an actionable duty of any kind. Consequently, it is only them who may have standing to prosecute an action challenging my professional work and/or who may be indispensable as the real party in interest. See, Puerto Rico Canons of Professional Conduct; Colegio Mayor de Tecnología v. Rodríguez Fernández, 2016 WL 687102 (A claim for legal malpractice requires the preexistence of an attorney-client relationship between claimant and respondent.) Ortiz v. Solivan Miranda, 1988 WL 580849. (Attorney for an insured is ethically bound to protect the interests of the insured, notwithstanding the interests of the insurer.); Seda Delgado v. De Jesús Reyes, 2018 WL 3855145 (A claim for monetary relief against an attorney, with whom claimant had no attorney-client relationship, cannot be based on the alleged breach of an ethical duty.) Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 11 of 31 12 OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 & 16 [Docket 188- 3] Interrogatories Nos. 15 & 16 – Theses requests sought the information and facts in support of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 12 and 15. Defendant’s response was evasive, nonsensical and a self-serving statement about his belief that there was no attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff lacks standing. These responses do not address the questions asked or Affirmative Defenses No. 12 and 15. Plaintiff requests that Defendant amend or withdraw the Affirmative Defenses. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT INTERROGATORY NO. 15 & 16 [Docket 188-6] There is nothing to supplement and, once more, Mr. Angelet reiterates that he only represented CMA and engineer Fernández in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. If plaintiff actually suffered any harm as an insurer, albeit the fact it was impleaded under the direct action statute and appeared through an independent counsel, the same is not claimable and/or attributable to Mr. Angelet, who was ethically bound to protect the interests of his clients who were plaintiff’s insureds. Finally, although Mr. Angelet doesn’t hold his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, plaintiff is the party with all the relevant information and documentation regarding its own conduct throughout in underlying litigation, including its voluntary decision to settle the claim when it did and for the amount it did. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 12 of 31 13 PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Describe whether or not any of the insurance companies who may afford answering Defendant with liability and/or professional liability coverage for Plaintiff’s claims in this action are defending against Plaintiff’s claims and/or otherwise proceeding under or pursuant to any written reservation of rights document, non-waiver agreement, coverage denial, or other document which in any way asserts to limit answering Defendant’s insurance coverage and/or rights under and pursuant to the terms and conditions of such policy or policies. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF INTERROGATORY NO. 17 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The question is overly broad and the response required is exceedingly burdensome. Albeit the aforesaid objections and based on my current first hand-recollection, CHUBB Insurance Co., issued an insurance policy which I expect to cover my defense and any liability attached against me, pursuant to its terms and conditions. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17 [Docket 188-3] Interrogatory No. 17 – This request sought information relating to Defendant’s insurance coverage for Plaintiff’s claims in this action, including any actual or potentially asserted limitations on such coverage. Defendant’s response does not respond to the actual question asked about any limitations on coverage that have or may be asserted and Plaintiff requests that the response be amended. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT INTERROGATORY NO. 17 [Docket 188-6] There is nothing to supplement; as you are well aware, CHUBB Insurance Co., issued an insurance policy that is implicated by virtue of plaintiff’s allegations, which Mr. Angelet expects to cover any liability that may be attached against him. I invite you to review the Court’s holding in the case of Zurich v. Lord, in which it was unequivocally stated that “…the duty to indemnify is triggered only when a judgment within the policy coverage is rendered against the insured”…and, consequently, “…is controlled by the established facts.” Zurich v. Lord, 986 F.Supp.2d 104, 116 (DPR 2013) In other words, as the Court ably explained, “this duty arises only when the claim against the insured has enough merit to produce a judgment for the claimant, or a settlement.” Id. Finally, I honestly recall that you or counsel Lugo confirmed having the said policy, and we both know the reason why Mr. Angelet’s carrier hasn’t been impleaded in the case Again, regrettably, the purported evasiveness of defendant’s answer seems to be an unadorned attempt to just manufacture a discovery dispute. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 13 of 31 14 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 3 CCC requests that co-defendant Angelet produce and/or permit CCC to inspect and photocopy the following documents: Any and all medical records related to your response to Interrogatory No. 7. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST NO. 3 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The request calls for private personal documents not relevant to the claims and defenses pleaded in the matter. Additionally, the request is an unjustified bid aimed at harassing and embarrassing the responding party without cause. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST NO. 3 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 3 – See Discussion of Interrogatory No. 7, above. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST NO. 3 [Docket 188-6] Defendant Angelet stands behind and reiterates his objection. See preceding response Objection to Answer No. 7. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 14 of 31 15 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 10 CCC requests that co-defendant Angelet produce and/or permit CCC to inspect and photocopy the following documents: Please produce all of your invoices for the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST NO. 10 [Docket 188-1] OBJECTION: The request is overly broad with no reasonable particularity. Additionally, any and all responsive documents have already been furnished and, after a reasonable search, there is no other responsive document within my possession, custody, and control. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST NO. 10 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 10 – This request seeks all of Defendant’s invoicing from the BJNP Litigation. Clearly, Defendant, who is a licensed attorney, has it within his power to search for and produce all of his billing records for the BJNP Litigation, including access to his own banking records. While Plaintiff has possession of the altered BJNP Litigation case file materials, as produced by Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff has been unable to investigate the file further due to spoliation concerns and requests that Defendant access his banking and/or accounting records and produce all invoicing for the BJNP Litigation. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST NO. 10 [Docket 188-6] There is nothing to supplement and the demand stated in your objection is unconceivable in light of the fact that, as you know, Mr. Angelet doesn’t hold his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, and, more importantly, plaintiff has all the documents it now requests. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 15 of 31 16 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 14 Please produce a certified copy of each known policy of insurance, including professional, excess or umbrella insurance, for each and every insurer which may provide liability and/or professional liability insurance coverage to Defendant for the claims presented in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, including but not limited to a summary of available coverages and/or eroding policy limits and the amounts of insurance still available if limits are eroding for defense, litigation and/or attorney’s fees and costs. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST NO. 14 [Docket 188-1] Currently, I do not have within my possession, custody, or control the responsive documents, but have instructed my counsel to procure them and make them available forthwith. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST NO. 14 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 14 – A party may discover any insurance agreement that would either satisfy all or part of a possible judgment or indemnity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Defendant’s response states that these insurance documents will be made available but, to date, they have not been produced. Please produce them within the next 7 days. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST NO. 14 [Docket 188-6] I honestly recall that you or counsel Lugo confirmed having the policy at issue. If that is not the case, my apologies and the same will be produced prior to the upcoming mediation hearing. NOTE: The policy was already produced by the undersigned on February 15th. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 16 of 31 17 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 15 Please produce any and all written reservation of rights documents, non-waiver agreements or other memorandum, correspondence, agreements or documents under and pursuant to the terms and conditions of any policy or policies of insurance that may provide Defendant with coverage or a defense for claims arising from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST NO. 15 [Docket 188-1] Currently, I do not have within my possession, custody, or control the responsive documents, but have instructed my counsel to procure them and make them available forthwith. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST NO. 15 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 15 – A party may discover any insurance agreement that would either satisfy all or part of a possible judgment or indemnity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Defendant’s response states that these insurance documents will be made available but, to date, they have not been produced. Please produce them within the next 7 days. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST NO. 15 [Docket 188-6] Contrary to the policy, my understanding is that production of this document is still pending. I will double my efforts to obtain it from the insurance carrier and produce it prior to the upcoming mediation hearing. NOTE: The document was already produced by the undersigned on February 15th. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 17 of 31 18 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Admit that CCC paid (in whole or in part) your fees for legal services provided on behalf of CMA Architects and Engineers and Engineer Manuel Fernandez-Rodríguez in the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 2 is admitted in part. Specifically, based on my current first hand-recollection, CCC payed for part of my clients’ defense, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the implicated policy, after exhaustion of the self-insured retention. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 2 – This request asks whether Plaintiff paid Defendant for legal services and, rather than admit or deny as required, Defendant submitted a self-serving and evasive response that “CCC payed for part of my clients’ defense.” Even though Defendant states it is admitted in part, Defendant improperly re-characterizes the request for admission, does not specify what is admitted in his statements, and therefore did not properly admit or deny the request. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 [Docket 188-6] As indicated in the answer, Mr. Angelet admitted that CCC payed for part of his clients’ defense, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the implicated policy, after exhaustion of the self-insured retention. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 18 of 31 19 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 Admit that you sent periodic status reports to CCC in connection with your representation of CMA Architects and Engineers and Engineer Manuel Fernandez-Rodríguez in the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 3 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, as to the substance of the request, based on my current first hand- recollection, it was through me that my clients, CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández, fulfilled their obligations before CCC under the terms and conditions of the implicated policy and this this may have included written communications, some of which could have been status reports on behalf of my clients’ as CCC insureds. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 3 – Although Defendant concludes his response to this request for admission by stating “The rest is denied,” Defendant did not identify what portions of the request were admitted. Rather, Defendant submitted an evasive statement that attempted to re-characterize the request without actually admitting any portion of it. Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly-available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 [Docket 188-6] As indicated in the answer, Mr. Angelet admitted that it was through him that his clients, CMA and engineer Manuel Fernandez, fulfilled their obligations before CCC under the terms and conditions of the implicated policy and this may have included written communications, some of which could have been status reports on behalf of his clients as CCC’s insureds. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 19 of 31 20 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 Admit that under Canon 20 of Puerto Rico Canons of Ethics, 4 P.R. Laws. Ann. Ap. IX Sec. 20, case files belong to the client and should be returned to a client immediately upon request. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 5 is admitted in full, albeit the fact that is a pure legal concern without application of law to fact, plaintiff in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al., at some point in the proceedings, moved the Trial Court for summary judgment. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 5 – This response is nonsensical and evasive, in that Defendant initially responds “admitted in full” but then goes on to make statements limiting the admission and concludes with “The rest is denied.” Defendant needs to submit a proper response. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 [Docket 188-6] As indicated in the answer, Mr. Angelet admitted it in full. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 20 of 31 21 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 Admit that, on or about May 30, 2012, Plaintiff in the BJNP Litigation filed a motion for summary judgment in that case. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 6 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, as to the substance of the request, based on my current first hand- recollection, plaintiff in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al., at some point in the proceedings, moved the Trial Court for summary judgment. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 6 – This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 [Docket 188-6] As indicated in the answer, Mr. Angelet admitted that plaintiff in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA moved the Trial Court for Summary Judgment. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 21 of 31 22 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 Admit that, on or about July 23, 2012, you filed a motion in the BJNP Litigation requesting a 60-day extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment referenced in Request No. 6. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 7 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, as to the substance of the request, based on my current first hand- recollection, all my works on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández were timely and always aimed at protecting my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 7 – This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 [Docket 188-6] The request was and currently remains denied. Of course, once Mr. Angelet has access to his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA or given the corroborative documentation, if the content of the request is verified, the answer may then be changed to an admission. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 22 of 31 23 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Admit that on or about August 7, 2012, the trial court in the BJNP Litigation granted your motion for extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment referenced in Request No. 6, as well as allowed for the conclusion of all pending discovery within the same 60-day term. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 8 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Hence, currently, I cannot admit or deny it. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 8 – In responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 [Docket 188-6] The request was and currently remains denied. Of course, once Mr. Angelet has access to his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA or given the corroborative documentation, if the content of the request is verified, the answer may then be changed to an admission. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 23 of 31 24 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Admit that you did not (either on behalf of CMA Architects and Engineers and Engineer Manuel Fernandez-Rodríguez) file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment referenced in Request No. 6. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 9 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, as to the substance of the request, based on my current first hand- recollection, all my works on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández were timely and always aimed at protecting my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 9 – This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 [Docket 188-6] The request was and currently remains denied. Of course, once Mr. Angelet has access to his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA or given the corroborative documentation, if the content of the request is verified, the answer may then be changed to an admission. Now, it is admitted that the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA was ruled upon as unopposed by Mr. Angelet’s clients. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 24 of 31 25 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Admit that on or about October 13, 2011, both you and Atty. Juan Vilella-Janeiro received authorization from CCC (by way of Mr. Paul Skok) to retain Engineer Fred Fletcher as an expert in the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 10 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, based on my current first hand-recollection, CCC authorized counsel Vilella, not me, to retain Mr. Fletcher and, on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández, I acquiesced to and prompted the use of any and all experts in a manner that would advance my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 10 –This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 [Docket 188-6] As indicated in the answer, Mr. Angelet admitted that it was Mr. Vilella, not him, the one authorized by CCC to retain Mr. Fletcher. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 25 of 31 26 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 Admit that Engineer Fred Fletcher was, in fact, retained as an expert for the defense in the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 11 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, based on my current first hand-recollection, counsel Vilella, not me, retained Mr. Fletcher and, on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández, I acquiesced to and prompted the use of any and all experts in a manner that would advance my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 11 -- This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 [Docket 188-6] As indicated in the answer, Mr. Angelet admitted that Mr. Fletcher was retained by Mr. Vilella. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 26 of 31 27 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 Admit that you never announced Engineer Fred Fletcher as an expert witness in the BJNP Litigation, nor was any report prepared by him produced to either the court or Plaintiff. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 12 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, based on my current first hand-recollection, I never met nor communicated with Mr. Fletcher regarding his works as expert witness, but, on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández, I acquiesced to and prompted the use of any and all experts in a manner that would advance my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 12 -- This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 [Docket 188-6] The request was and currently remains denied. Of course, once Mr. Angelet has access to his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA or given the corroborative documentation, if the content of the request is verified, the answer may then be changed to an admission. But, again, it bears to reiterate that the use of Mr. Fletcher as expert witness, as in the case of any other expert witness, in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA was handled by Mr. Vilella. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 27 of 31 28 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 Admit that you did not (either on behalf of CMA Architects and Engineers and Engineer Manuel Fernandez-Rodríguez) announce a defense damages expert in the BJNP Litigation prior to October 2012. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 13 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, based on my current first hand-recollection, on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández, I acquiesced to and prompted the use of any and all experts in a manner that would advance my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 13 -- This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 [Docket 188-6] The request was and currently remains denied. Of course, once Mr. Angelet has access to his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA or given the corroborative documentation, if the content of the request is verified, the answer may then be changed to an admission. As in the case of the previous response, it bears to repeat that the use of any expert witnesses in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA was handled by Mr. Vilella and Mr. Angelet only acquiesced as the attorney for CCC’s insureds, CMA and engineer Manuel Fernandez. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 28 of 31 29 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 Admit that the first time that you announced to the trial court in the BJNP Litigation the use of a damages expert was in October 2014. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 14 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Yet, based on my current first hand-recollection, on behalf of CMA and engineer Manuel Fernández, I acquiesced to and prompted the use of any and all experts in a manner that would advance my clients’ interests in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA, et al. The rest is denied. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 14 -- This response is evasive, in that Defendant does not identify what portions of the request are admitted and goes on to make statements recharacterizing the request and then concludes with “The rest is denied.” Furthermore, in responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 [Docket 188-6] The request was and currently remains denied. Of course, once Mr. Angelet has access to his casefile for the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA or given the corroborative documentation, if the content of the request is verified, the answer may then be changed to an admission. As in the case of the previous response, it bears to repeat that the use of any expert witnesses in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA was handled by Mr. Vilella and Mr. Angelet only acquiesced as the attorney for CCC’s insureds, CMA and engineer Manuel Fernandez. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 29 of 31 30 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 Admit that on or about October 6, 2015, the Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Part, ordered you in the BJNP Litigation to turn over his case file materials for the BJNP Litigation to the new defense counsel who substituted you in the referenced litigation. REQUEST NO. 17. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 16 appears to refer to documents not included with the request and, currently, not readily available. Hence, currently, I cannot admit or deny it. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 16 -- In responding to Requests for Admissions, the responding party cannot simply state it did not have documents or sufficient information available to answer. The responding party must represent that it has actually made a reasonable effort to ascertain the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1); Brown v. Alren Mgmt., 663 F.2d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, where the underlying BJNP Litigation public court records are equally available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot respond that it has no information to answer without simultaneously representing that it has made a reasonable effort to review publicly available materials, as opposed to improperly relying solely on first-hand recollection or memory. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 [Docket 188-6] Mr. Angelet admits that the San Juan Superior Court ordered him to turn over the casefile. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 30 of 31 31 PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 Admit that you did not turn over the BJNP Litigation case file materials to the new defense counsel that substituted you in the BJNP Litigation. ANSWER BY ANGELET TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 [Docket 188- 2] Request No. 17 is admitted in part. Specifically, based on my current first hand-recollection, I kept the casefile after withdrawing as counsel for my clients, CMA and engineer Fernandez, as advised to Mr. Jordi Bofill and Mr. Jorge Tirado. OBJECTION TO ANSWER BY ANGELET TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 [Docket 188-3] Request No. 17 – While Defendant states it is “admitted in part,” defendant does not identify which portions are admitted or denied. Rather, Defendant makes a statement meant to re- characterize the request without identify what was actually admitted or denied in part. ANGELET REPLY TO OBJECTION ABOUT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 [Docket 188-6] Mr. Angelet admits that the he did not turn over the casefile to the new defense counsel that substituted him in the matter of Constructora BJNP vs. CMA. Yet, he reiterates the qualification included in his answer to the effect that he advised Mr. Bofill and Mr. Tirado of his decision and the reasons behind it. Case 3:16-cv-02656-JAG-SCC Document 190 Filed 02/20/19 Page 31 of 31