Defendant's Responses to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories

Beginning of Legal Text

CAUSE NO. 199 596 97

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO: Plaintiff DSC Communications Corporation, by and through its attorney of record, Michael P. Lynn, Lynn Stodghill Melsheimer & Tillotson, L.L.P., 750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas 75201.

Pursuant to Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Evan Brown submits the following answers to Plaintiff DSC Communication Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendant objects to the instructions and definitions contained in Plaintiff DSC Communication Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories because, as applied to specific discovery requests, they cause the requests to be overly broad and global, vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and to seek information, in part, protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to and without waiving these general objections, Defendant responds to the specific interrogatories as follows:

RESPONSES

Interrogatory No. 1:

Please identify the individual(s) answering these interrogatories.

Answer:

Evan Brown

Interrogatory No. 2:

Please identify each person who has any knowledge of any facts relevant to the claims made in the Petition, as defined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, describing the substance of each person's knowledge.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory insofar as it purports to require Defendant to describe the substance of each person's knowledge for the reason that such a requirement seeks to impose burdens on Defendant beyond those permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, calls for Defendant to speculate, is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney- client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Alan Adams
DSC Communications Corporation

Dan Allman
DSC Communications Corporation

Jack Barreneaux
DSC Communications Corporation

Wylie Basham
DSC Communications Corporation

Dick Belote
DSC Communications Corporation

Matt Bilbo
DSC Communications Corporation

Rick Billings
DSC Communications Corporation

Gary Brown
DSC Communications Corporation

George Brundt
DSC Communications Corporation

Chris Cole
DSC Communications Corporation

Gamini Desoyza
DSC Communications Corporation

Jim Donald
DSC Communications Corporation

Dan Finch
DSC Communications Corporation

Marvin Harbin
DSC Communications Corporation

Dave Hinshaw
DSC Communications Corporation

Wayne Jones
DSC Communications Corporation

Chuck Lane
DSC Communications Corporation

Mike McCarty
DSC Communications Corporation

Dan McMurray
DSC Communications Corporation

Claude Owen
DSC Communications Corporation

Raymond Percival
DSC Communications Corporation

Rick Ross
DSC Communications Corporation

Cheryl Sanders
DSC Communications Corporation

Brian Scudder
DSC Communications Corporation

Larry Sewell
DSC Communications Corporation

Jinx Smith
DSC Communications Corporation

Jianbai Wang
DSC Communications Corporation

Ron Ward
DSC Communications Corporation

Scott Yegal
DSC Communications Corporation

All members of DSC Communications Corporation's Tools Group

Evan Brown
2705 Chadborne Drive
Plano, Texas 75023

Steve Levine

Tina Young

Billy Gonzales

Jack Coates
College Station, Texas

Sam Horowitz
Palo Alto, California

Lance Flores
Dallas, Texas

Interrogatory No. 3:

Please identify any experts engaged by you or your attorney who may be called to testify at trial.

Answer:

Defendant has not yet engaged any expert witnesses.

Interrogatory No. 4:

Please identify any expert that you have consulted in this case, if such experts opinion, impressions or work product have been reviewed by any testifying witness, including any expert witness identified in Interrogatory No. 3 above, in this case.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the consulting expert privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant responds as follows:

Defendant has not yet engaged any expert witnesses.

Interrogatory No. 5:

For each expert named in your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 or No. 4 above, please state the date on which he/she was first consulted by you or your attorney(s), the subject matter on which he/she is expected to testify, the mental impressions and opinions held by each expert, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the consulting expert privilege and because it seeks to impose burdens on Defendant beyond those permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant responds as follows:

Defendant has not yet engaged any expert witnesses.

Interrogatory No. 6:

For each expert named in your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 or No. 4 above, please state the facts known to the expert which relate to or form the basis of the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the consulting expert privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant responds as follows:

Defendant has not yet engaged any expert witnesses.

Interrogatory No. 7:

Please identify and describe in detail the "method of converting machine executable binary code info high level source code form using logic and data abstractions!' (hereinafter "Solution), that is described in your April 19, 1996 memorandum to Larry Sewell.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information which is confidential and proprietary. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Finally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because its inclusion within Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories causes such interrogatories to require more than 30 answers in violation of Rule 168(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Interrogatory No. 8:

Please identify all documents related to the Solution.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant mates as follows:

Pursuant to Rule 168(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant has produced documents from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be ascertained.

Interrogatory No. 9:

Please identify all efforts by you to protect or preserve the Solution.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney- client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information which is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states as follows:

Defendant has protected and preserved the Solution by maintaining its confidential status and by refusing to disclose the Solution to any third parties, including DSC.

Interrogatory No. 10:

Please identify each and every person to whom you have disclosed any part of the Solution.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney- client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information which is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states as follows:
Wylie Basham
DSC Communications Corporation

Dick Belote
DSC Communications Corporation

Rick Billings
DSC Communications Corporation

Gary Brown
DSC Communications Corporation

Gamini Desoyza
DSC Communications Corporation

Jim Donald
DSC Communications Corporation

Dan Finch
DSC Communications Corporation

Dave Hinshaw
DSC Communications Corporation

Wayne Jones
DSC Communications Corporation

Chuck Lane
DSC Communications Corporation

Mike McCarty
DSC Communications Corporation

Dan McMurray
DSC Communications Corporation

Cheryl Sanders
DSC Communications Corporation

Larry Sewell
DSC Communications Corporation

Jianbai Wang
DSC Communications Corporation

Ron Ward
DSC Communications Corporation

Steve Levine

Tina Young

Billy Gonzales

Lance Flores
Dallas, Texas

Interrogatory No. 11:

Please identify each and every person with whom you have discussed the Solution.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney- client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information which is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states as follows:

Defendant refers to his Answer to Interrogatory No. 10 set forth above.

Interrogatory No. 12:

Please identify each and every person to whom you have marketed any part of the Solution.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney- client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information which is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states as follows:

Defendant has not marketed his Idea to anyone.

Interrogatory No. 13:

Please identify each and every person you have contacted in an effort to seek backing or financing for the development of the Solution.

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney- client, work product, party communications, investigative, and consulting expert privileges. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information which is confidential and proprietary. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states as follows:

Defendant has not contacted anyone in an effort to seek backing or financing for the development of the Idea.

Interrogatory No. 14:

Please identify the facts underlying your contention, in paragraph IV of Defendant's Original Answer, that "Defendant specifically denies that conditions precedent to recovery have been performed or have occurred."

Answer:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and work product privileges and because it seeks to compel Defendant to provide a legal opinion which he is unqualified to render.

Respectfully submitted,


___________________________
<< signature >>


RICHARD A. SAYLES
State Bar No. 17697500
ERIC D. PEARSON
State Bar No. 15690472
SAYLES & LIDJI, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
4400 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
(214) 939-8700
(214) 939-8787 (fax)


Attorneys for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served upon all counsel of record on this 16th day of July, 1997, pursuant to rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

___________________________
<< signature >>

STATE OF TEXAS    |
COUNTY OF DALLAS |

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Evan Brown, who being duly sworn by me, upon his oath stated as follows:

1. My name is Evan Brown. I am above the age of 21 and am competent to make this affidavit.

2. I have read the foregoing answers to interrogatories. The answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

____________________________
<< signature >>
Evan Brown

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the 15th day of July, 1997, to certify which witness my hand and official seal of office.

SHAWN R. SIEVE Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires 01-13-99

___________________________ << signature >> Notary Public in and for the State of Texas

End of Legal Text

Back to Legal Page

Back to Evan Brown's Home Page

webmaster@unixguru.com
URL - http://www.unixguru.com/filings/interrog_EB_1_respons.html
Page last updated 18 January 1998