1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

PIPE HI1TERS UNION, LLC, 

Plaintifi 

vs. 

PIPE HITFERS UNION MC, LLC, 

Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION F I L E L) 

2023 MAR -2 PM 1:36 

CLE D1ST1CT C URI 

WESTERN [)ISTiUCT OF EXA 

Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-167-Rflj__ 

V 

Third Party Motion to Deny Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 

1. Introduction 

Now conies Mr. Deckert who is a US Army Veteran, father and grandfather. Mr. Deckert has 

suffered over five years of intimidation and harassment at the hands of this plaintiff and his counsel 

causing stress and anguish and depression. Mr. Deckert does not have access to any documents, answers 

or information other than already provided. Plaintiffs counsel continues to use this court to make 

generalized statements about Mr. Deckert that are factually untrue. Plaintiffs counsel at every opportunity 

feels compelled to slander and defame Mr. Deckert with accusations and lies about his role and 

involvement is this case and presumes to know Mr. Deckert. Plaintiffs' counsel continues to state Mr. 

Deckert was bound by an alleged agreement and when pressed the Plaintiff is unable to present a single 

executed agreement that Mr. Deckert was a party to. This agreement doesn't exist, and Mr. Deckert was 

found to have NOT been bound by any such agreement or to have been responsible for any wrong doing, 

including manufacturing trademarked images. 

I am writing to submit this Third-Party Motion to deny Plaintiffs Motion to Compel in the 

above-mentioned case. As a third party with a legitimate interest in the outcome of this case, I 

respectfully request that the Court deny the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel on the basis that the 

interrogatories and discovery have been provided with objections and every question has been answered. 

PIPE HEERS UNION, LLC V. PIPE HflThRS UNION MC. LLC THIRD PARTY MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIPES MOTION TO COMPEL 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 7
I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Argument 

In civil litigation, the discoveiy process is a crucial component of any case. Interrogatories are a type 

of discovery tool used to obtain information from parties to the lawsuit. However, in some cases, 

interrogatories may also be served on third parties such as in this case, who are not directly involved in the 

lawsuit, such as Mr. Deckert. 

Rule 26(bX2) factors referenced by the Thompson court further provide for direct court 

involvement in potentially limiting the scope of discovery. The Rule specifies three considerations 

which, if present, require the court to limit the scope of otherwise permissible discovery. Rule 

26(bX2XC) states: 

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise 

allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: 

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from 

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by 

discovery in the action; or 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, 

considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in 

resolving the issues. 

In this matter Mr. Deckert has responded to now two sets of interrogatories and discovery that are 

duplicative as described in. Rule 26(bX2XCXi). Also, the plaintiff waited 15 months after this case had 

been adjudicated to subpoena Mr. Deckert in this matter. Considering the Plaintiff has been litigating this 

case since 2017 it is reasonable to determine that given all the actual defendants in the case the plaintiff 

could have at any point asked for discovery and interrogatories from any of those defendants who might 

have the information being sought, see Rule 26(bX2XCXii). Lastly Rule 26(bX2XC)(iii). The plaintiff has 

not demonstrated or asked for specific damages in this case but is asking for financial records 

PIPE HITTERS UNION, LW V. PIPE LETTERS UNION MC, LW 

THIRD PARTY MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 7
I 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

from entities that Mr Deckert does not now, nor has he ever had access to. Mr. Deckert is not a defendant 

in this case and as stated in his answers does not have nor has, he ever had most of the information being 

asked for because Mr. Deckert was not a party to leadership or any of the business dealings the 

Motorcycle club might have documents for prior to the fall of 2018 or the LLC which was never able to 

fully stand up because of this litigation. That being a fact, Mr. Deckert has provided answers to all 

interrogatories and documents that he was able to put together. Beyond that they either do not exist or can 

likely be obtained from several the previous and actual defendants if they had been asked to do so. 

The Supreme Court has historically held that third parties who are not directly involved in a 

lawsuit have a right to protect their privacy interests and may object to discovery requests, including 

interrogatories. The Court emphasized that the discovery rules should not be used as a fishing expedition, 

and that parties must demonstrate a specific need for the information sought. The Court has said that the 

burden of responding to discovery requests falls on the party who is being sued, and not on innocent third 

parties. Therefore, if a third party is served with interrogatories, they may object on the grounds that the 

request is overly broad, burdensome, or invades their privacy interests." 

Mr. Deckert has cooperated in a timely manner with all requests and orders from this court and 

answered all interrogatories and discovery albeit under objection and provided any documentation that he 

is able to. Mr. Deckert cannot create/invent or manufacture documents that do not exist or answer 

questions he does not have the answers to. 

Mr. Deckert did provide several other possible sources for document discovery or interrogatories, 

but he does not have access to anything other than what has been provided. Mr. Deckert has done nothing 

that can be construed as improper for any reason. 

In Oppenheimer Fund Inc. v. Sanders, 437 US. 340 (1978), the Supreme Court held that 

"discovery was never intended to be a game of hide-and-seek" and that "the obligation to respondfidly 

and in goodfaith to proper discovery requests is unqualfled "Here, Mr. Deckert has complied with the 

PIPE HITFERS UNION, LLC V. PIPE HFERS UNION MC. LLC THIRD PARTY MOTION TO DRNY PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 7
I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

from entities that Mr. Deckert does not now, nor has he ever had access to. Mr. Deckert is not a defendant 

in this case and as stated in his answers does not have nor has, he ever had most of the information be 

asked for because Mr. Deckert was not a party to leadership or any of the business dealings the 

Motorcycle club might have documents for prior to the fall of 2018 or the LLC which was never able to 

fully stand up because of this litigation. That being a fact, Mr. Deckert has provided answers to all 

inteffogatories and documents that he was able to put together. Beyond that they either do not exist or can 

likely be obtained from several the previous and actual defendants if they had been asked to do so. 

The Supreme Court has historically held that third parties who are not directly involved in a 

lawsuit have a right to protect their privacy interests and may object to discovery requests, including 

interrogatories. The Court emphasized that the discovery rules should not be used as a fishing expedition, 

and that parties must demonstrate a specific need for the information sought. The Court has said that the 

burden of responding to discovery requests falls on the party who is being sued, and not on innocent third 

parties. Therefore, if a third party is served with interrogatories, they may object on the grounds that the 

request is overly broad, burdensome, or invades their privacy interests." 

Mr. Deckert has cooperated in a timely manner with all requests and orders from this court and 

answered all interrogatories and discovery albeit under objection and provided any documentation that he 

is able to. Mr. Deckert cannot create/invent or manufacture documents that do not exist or answer 

questions he does not have the answers to. 

Mr. Deckert did provide several other possible sources for document discovery or interrogatories, 

but he does not have access to anything other than what has been provided. Mr. Deckert has done nothing 

that can be construed as improper for any reason. 

In Oppenheimer Fun4 Inc. v. Sanders, 437 US. 340 (1978), the Supreme Court held that 

"discovery was never intended to be a game of hide-and-seek" and that "the obligation to respondfully 

and in good faith to proper discovery requests is unqualified "Here, Mr. Deckert has complied with the 

PiPE PETTERS UNION, LLC V. PIPE HITrERS UNION MC, LLC 

THIRD PARTY MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIn'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 7
1 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Ii 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiffs discovery requests to the best of his ability and with good faith, despite the harassing 

behavior of the Plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel has asked, and Mr. Deckert has answered to the best 

of his ability all questions. 

Mr. Deckert did object to the timeliness of the previous motion and requests for discovery based 

on the order and opinion of Judge Mai* Lane in Case 1 :20-cv-00i 67-RP who ordered and stated the 

following: "Similarly, Plaintiff never sought "additional discovery on the issue ofprofits for a period of 

three months after the date of [the default judgment]" as contemplated by the Default Judgment. Dkt. #2, 

4, 5" The Honorable Mark Lane US Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff failed to ask for discovery for period 

of 15 months after the default judgment thereby exceeding the reasonable time determined by the court. 

Mr. Deckert previously objected to being served duplicate discovery as noted numerous times in 

both Case I: 17-cv-0l 134-SS & 1 :20-cv-00167-RP. These discovery requests have, in substance, been 

previously propounded. Continuous discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression. Asking the 

same questions over and over will not illicit a different answer 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RPI)ocument 36 Filed 07/29,21 Page 11 of 11 "2. The Motion be 

DENIED to the extent it seeks recovery from Deckert or Bilansky in their individual capacities." 

Honorable Mark Lane US Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff proceeded to serve Mr. Deckert some 15 

months after the fact a subpoena for Interrogatories and Discovery. 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 36 Filed 07/29/21 Page 4 of 11 "Second, the Motion fails to 

describe any authority for the proposition that Deckert and Bilansky may be subject to criminal contempt. 

Neither Deckert nor Bianshy was named in the original Complaint, neither was subject to an order of the District Court, nor was either man obilgated to respond to any discovery served upon them by 

Plaintiff" The Honorable Mark Lane US Magistrate Judge. 

PIPE HITTERS UNION, LLC V. PIPE HITTERS UNION MC, LLC ThIRD PARTY MOTION TO DENY PLAINTWFS MOTION TO COMPEL 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 7
1] 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is without merit,, harassing and unnecessary because Mr. 

Deckert has already provided the requested intenogatories and discovery albeit with objections and has 

answered now two times the same interrogatones and discovery even though he is merely a 3th party in 

this case. The Plaintiff may not be satisfied with the answers, but the questions have been answered as 

best as can be. This does not make the answers deficient. 

Conclusion 

Based on the above argument, facts and circumstances, I respectfiully request that the Court deny 

the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

PIPE }ITIThRS UNION, LLC V. PIPE H1TI'ERS UNION MC, LLC 

THIRD PARTY MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 

k, -' 

Charles Deckert 03/02/2023 

1819 Oak Grove Rd 

Luling Texas 78648 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 7
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on March 3rd, 2023, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court which will send 

notification of such filing to all parties who have appeared in this action. A copy of service has also been mailed to 

the Plaintiffs counsel 408 Westlith Street, Fifth Floor Austin, Texas 78701. 

L-- 

Charles Deckert 03/02/2023 

Case 1:20-cv-00167-RP Document 47 Filed 03/02/23 Page 7 of 7