Banner - Evan Brown - Legal Filings

Plaintiff's Objections and Answers to
Defendant Evan Brown's
First Set of Interrogatories

Beginning of Legal Text

CAUSE NO. 199 596 97


DSC COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

v.
EVAN BROWN,
Defendant.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS


219TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS
TO DEFENDANT EVAN BROWN'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO: Defendant Evan Brown, by and through his attorney of record, Richard A. Sayles, Esq. and Eric D. Pearson, Esq., Sayles & Lidji, P.C., 1201 Elm Street, Suite 4400, Dallas, Texas 75270

COMES NOW, Plaintiff DSC Communications Corporation ("DSC" herein) by and through its attorney of record, Eric W. Pinker, Esq., Lynn Stodghill Melsheimer & Tillotson, L.L.P., 750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas 75201, in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and submits the attached as its Objections and Answers to Defendant Evan Brown's ("Brown" herein), First Set of Interrogatories in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

    I.
    GENERAL OBJECTIONS

    DSC makes the following objections at the outset so as not to require unnecessary repetition of these same objections in response to each interrogatory. Each of the responses herein is made subject to and incorporates the following objections:

    1. DSC objects to Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek the disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications. To the extent that Brown's interrogatories can be construed to seek privileged information or documents, DSC objects and will provide only non-privileged information responses and documents.

    2. DSC objects to Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek information, documents, or responses protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. To the extent that Brown's interrogatories can be construed to seek privileged information, DSC objects and will provide only non-privileged information and responses.

    3. DSC objects to Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek information, documents, or responses protected by the investigative and party communication privileges. To the extent that Brown's interrogatories can be construed to seek privileged information or documents, DSC objects and will provide only non-privileged information, responses, and documents.

    4. DSC objects to Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek information, documents, or responses relating to matters that are not raised in the pleadings on the grounds that they are not relevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    5. DSC objects to Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or documents which are protected from disclosure under Texas or federal law.

    6. DSC objects to Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or documents relating to an expert retained for the purpose of consultation and not for the purpose of testifying where such consulting expert's opinion or impressions have not been reviewed by a testifying expert on the ground that such requests are overly broad, invade the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and the investigative privileges.

    7. DSC objects to the "Instructions" contained in Brown's First Set of Interrogatories to the extent they seek to expand or modify the breadth and scope of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or to seek to increase DSC's duties under those Rules.

    8. DSC objects to the requests for names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons whose names, addresses, and/or telephone numbers can be ascertained with greater ease and less expense by Brown. To the extent DSC has readily available information that may be disclosed regarding addresses and phone numbers, that information will be provided. DSC further objects to the requests for addresses and telephone numbers to the extent that such information is not presently in the possession of DSC, and the burden of obtaining the information is essentially equal upon DSC and Brown.

    9. DSC reserves the right to supplement or amend these objections and responses upon, among other things: further investigation; discovery of additional facts; discovery of persons with knowledge of relevant information; developments in this action or any other proceedings; and the rebuttal of any of Brown's evidence in this action.

    10. DSC objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is not within DSC's possession, custody, or control and/or is uniquely within the knowledge of Brown in this lawsuit, or other third parties with knowledge relevant to this litigation.

    11. By responding to any interrogatory or providing any information herewith, DSC does not waive and expressly preserves the objections set forth herein and does not concede the relevancy or admissibility of the response.

    12. DSC incorporates each general objection in its response to each individual interrogatory and DSC will respond specifically to the interrogatories as DSC understands the terms used therein.

    13. DSC objects to all interrogatories to the extent that they call for an expression of opinion or a contention that relates to fact, or to the application of law to fact, before DSC has had the opportunity to complete discovery and to the extent that any interrogatory seeks information, documentary, or testimonial, that Brown has thus far failed or refused to produce or that DSC has not yet had access to as a result of mutual scheduling difficulties. DSC therefore reserves all rights to supplement these responses when its actually receives access to this discovery.

    II.
    INTERROGATORIES

    INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

    Identify each person who assisted you in the preparation of the answers to these Interrogatories.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

    Identify each person who may have knowledge, either directly or indirectly, of any facts relevant to any of the issues or matters in controversy in this case and set forth in summary fashion the facts of which you believe each such person has knowledge.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

    With regard to each person who may be called to testify as an expert witness by you, state:

    1. the identity and location (name, address and telephone number) of each such expert;

    2. the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;

    3. the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert; and

    4. the facts known to the expert (regardless s of when the factual information was acquired) which relate to or form the basis of the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

    With regard to each expert used for consultation and who is not expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, but whose opinions and impressions have been reviewed by a testifying expert, state:

    1. the identity and location (name, address. and telephone number) of each such expert;

    2. the subject matter on which the expert was consulted;

    3. the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert; and

    4. the facts known to the expert (regardless of when the factual information was acquired) which relate to or form the basis of the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

    Identify all occasions on which DSC has asserted that an invention made or conceived by an employee of DSC was property of DSC due to a written agreement between the employee and DSC such as, but not limited to, the Agreement.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

    Identify all litigation in which DSC has asserted that an invention made or conceived by an employee of DSC was property of DSC due to a written agreement between the employee and DSC such as, but not limited to, the Agreement.

    ANSWER:

    1. DSC Communications Corporation and DSC Technology v. Next Level Communications, et at, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 4:95CV96.

    2. DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Case No. 3:94-CV- I 1047-X.

    3. DSC Communications Corporation v. Samsung Information Systems America, Inc., et al., District Court Dallas County, Texas, 193rd Judicial District, Case No. 96-

    INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

    Identify all invention disclosure forms which relate to software reverse engineering.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

    Identify all individuals involved in the negotiations between Brown and DSC relating to "a prospective agreement for the development of a code conversion system" as referenced in Chris Cole's February 10, 1997 memorandum to Evan Brown.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

    State the reason or reasons why DSC "elected to discontinue the negotiations with [Evan Brown] regarding a prospective agreement for the development of a code conversion system" as referenced in Chris Cole's February 10, 1997 memorandum to Evan Brown.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

    Identify the manner in which the Idea is allegedly "along the lines of the business, work or investigations of [DSC] or of companies which it owns or controls."

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

    Identify the manner in which the Idea resulted from or was suggested by any work Evan Brown did on behalf of DSC.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

    Identify by date, description and persons involved all projects, work, investigations, research or other efforts by DSC to develop a software reverse engineering program such as the Idea, including but not limited to the "several occasions" on which DSC "investigated assembly language convertor systems, software, and ideas" as referenced in Dave Hinshaw's July 16, 1997 [sic] memorandum to Evan Brown.

    ANSWER:

    1. 1996 Invention Disclosure Form

    2. YASM to GAS conversion Utility -- In approximately 1996, Jianbai Wong and Rick Billings explored the possibility of converting legacy assembly code to GAS and then to high level source code.

    3. Cyber Automation Solution -- Lance Flores, Evan Brown, Rick Ross -- In approximately 1995, Evan Brown and Rick Ross met with Cyber Automations to discuss code conversion.

    4. Gotoless Conversions -- In approximately July of 1995, Rick Billings ad Matt Bilbo investigated assembly C-conversion.

    5. Take Five Software -- In approximately 1996, Rick Billings explored a software conversion which would allow DSC to read source code and display it graphically.

    6. Cygnus -- In approximately April 1997, Andy Lynn considered a complex conversion proposal.

    7. ParaSET -- In approximately 1994, Matt Bilbo and Rick Billings explored converting high level language to a visual representation.

    INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

    Identify all other corporations or individuals of which you are aware that are developing or attempting to develop a software reverse engineering program such as the Idea.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

    Identify all agreements, including all drafts or versions thereof, between DSC and one of its employees which DSC alleges obligates the employee to disclose to DSC the substance of any inventions made or conceived by the employee while employed by DSC.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

    Identify all agreements, contracts, proposals or understandings between DSC and any third party for the conversion of any of DSC's computer code.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

    Identify all estimates of the potential internal savings which could be realized by DSC by application of the Idea to any of DSC's computer code.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

    Identify all estimates of the potential third party market for the Idea.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

    Identify all agreements or proposals, including all drafts and versions thereof, which relate to the ownership, marketing, development or use of the Idea.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

    Identify all facts which support your allegation that the Idea is the property of DSC.

    ANSWER:

    INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

    Identify all facts which support your allegation that Evan Brown breached the Agreement.

    ANSWER:

    1. He has refused to promptly and fully communication the Solution to DSC (p A);

    2. He has refused to assist DSC to obtain patents for the Solution (p B);

    3. He has refused to acknowledge that the Solution is and will remain the sole and exclusive property of DSC, and has actively challenged such lawful ownership (p B);

    4. He has failed to make and maintain adequate and current written records of the Solution (p C);

    5. He has refused to acknowledge that any written records of the Solution "shall be and remain the property of and available to" DSC (p C);

    6. He has threatened to disclose the Solution to third parties without consent for DSC, in violation of the nondisclosure covenant contained in the Employee Patent, Copyright, and Proprietary Information Agreement (p D);

    7. He failed to notify DSC in writing that he claimed an interest in the Solution before he performed work for DSC which conflicted with his claim (p E); and

    8. He refused to allow DSC to make a full use of the Solution without charge, license, or other arrangement (p F).

      INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

      State the amount of damages you are seeking in this lawsuit and identify the method by which you calculated such damages.

      ANSWER:

        DSC seeks to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. At present, such fees and expenses are in the approximate amount of approximately $105,000, as reflected in the billing records that DSC is providing in response to Brown's Requests for Production. These fees and expenses are expected to increase through the time of trial and any subsequent appeals.

        In addition, DSC seeks to recover any lost profits or lost savings incurred as a result of Brown's failure to disclose and assign the Solution to DSC. At present, because Brown has refused to disclose the Solution in violation of the Court's order, DSC is unable to compute or even estimate the amount of such lost profits or lost savings. At such time as Brown complies with the Court's order and discloses the Solution to DSC, DSC will supplement this Interrogatory at the appropriate time and to the extent necessary under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record, as identified below, on this the 14th day of August, 1997:

    CM, RRR NO, Z 430 960 566
    Eric D. Pearson, Esq.
    Sayles & Lidji, P.C.
    1201 Elm Street, Suite 4400
    Dallas, Texas 75270
    		 CM, RRR NO, Z 430 960 568
    Mr. Lance Flores
    6514 Ridgecrest 222
    Dallas, Texas 75231
    CM, BRA NO, Z 430 960 567
    Dale Drake, Esq.
    110 East Davis, Suite 200
    Post Office Box 1662
    McKinney, Texas 75070-1662

    VERIFICATION

    STATE OF TEXAS    |
    COUNTY OF DALLAS |

    BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared WAYNE JONES, who, being duly sworn, stated that based upon personal knowledge, the factual matters alleged in the interrogatory answers included in Plaintiffs Objections and Answers to Defendant Evan Brown's First Set of Interrogatories are true and correct.

    Sworn to before me on the __ day of August, 1997, to certify which witness my hand and official seal.

    End of Legal Text

    Scales of Justice - Symbol to go back to Legal Page Back to Legal Page

    House - Symbol for Home Page Back to Evan Brown's Home Page

    webmaster@unixguru.com
    URL - http://www.unixguru.com/filings/interrog_DSC_1_respons.html
    Page last updated 18 January 1998

    Small Banner - Evan Brown - Legal Filings