Grisham et al v. Valenciano et al: Joint Advisory – Discovery Disputes, August 2021 Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER GRISHAM, JAMES 

EVERARD,

§

§

§

Plaintiffs §

§

vs. § Case No.: SA-20-CV-00387-OLG

§

RENE VALENCIANO, J. LOPEZ, 

HECTOR RUIZ, A. VERA, CITY OF 

OLMOS PARK

§

§

§

§

§

Defendants. §

§

JOINT ADVISORY REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES OF THE PARTIES 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Pursuant to the August 20, 2021, Magistrate’s Order [Dkt. 37], the Court required the 

parties to confer and submit this joint advisory to the Court concerning the following motions:

1. Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines and 

Memorandum of Law in Support [Dkt. 32]1

2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Grisham’s Deposition, Production of 

Documents, Request for Sanctions and Request for Expedited Hearing [Dkt. 33]2

3. Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Leave, Motion to Compel Depositions, Motion to 

Show Cause, and Request for Sanctions [Dkt. 35]3

1 Defendants’ Response is filed at Dkt. 38. Plaintiffs did not file a reply. 

2 Plaintiffs’ Response is filed at Dkt. 36. Defendants’ Reply is filed at Dkt. 45.

3 Defendants’ Response is filed at Dkt. 42. Plaintiffs’ Amended Reply is filed at Dkt. 44.

Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 46 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 6
Grisham et al v. Valenciano et al: Joint Advisory – Discovery Disputes, August 2021 Page 2

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order (Filed in conjunction with Plaintiffs’

Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel, Production of Documents and Request 

for Sanctions) [ECF 36].4

CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES

On August 25, 2021, the parties conferred by telephonic conference. The parties created a 

list of items to discuss and upon consideration of the items, the parties were able to agree to some 

of the items but remain opposed to others. The parties good faith conferral is summarized below: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines and Memorandum of 

Law in Support [Dkt 32].

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiffs are requesting the Court reopen expert and 

discovery deadlines.

STATUS OF CONFERRAL: The parties were not able to reach a resolution on this 

motion. The parties generally reached an agreement on the deposition of a City 

representative and Defendant’s expert, but no agreement was reached on the reopening of 

expert and discovery deadlines.

SUMMARY OF CONFERRAL: 

a. Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to conduct the deposition of Defendant City’s 

representative, despite the expiration of the discovery period, at Plaintiffs’ cost on 

a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties

b. Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to conduct the deposition of Defendants’ 

testifying expert, despite the expiration of the discovery period, at Plaintiffs’ cost 

on a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

4 Defendants’ Response is forthcoming. Plaintiffs do not intend to file a Reply.

Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 46 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 6
Grisham et al v. Valenciano et al: Joint Advisory – Discovery Disputes, August 2021 Page 3

c. Despite their good faith conferral, the parties could not come to an agreement 

regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the remaining scheduling order deadlines. 

The parties believe their briefing on these issues adequately supports their relative 

positions and will be prepared for argument at the currently set hearing.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Grisham’s Deposition, Production of Documents, 

Request for Sanctions and Expedited Hearing [Dkt 33].

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants are requesting to re-depose Plaintiff Grisham 

to answer questions Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to and instructed Grisham not to 

answer and to recover costs and attorneys’ fees. 

STATUS OF CONFERRAL: The parties resolved issues concerning Defendants’ 

Motion to Compel the Production of Documents. The parties were not able to reach an 

agreement on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Grisham’s Deposition.

SUMMARY OF CONFERRAL: 

a. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Plaintiff Grisham’s responses to Defendants 

Second Request for Production, as amended, are sufficient. Plaintiffs agreed to 

allow Defendants to serve Plaintiff Grisham one interrogatory, despite the 

expiration of the discovery period, in the same form as Defendants Second Request 

for Production request number 4. 

b. Despite their good faith conferral, the parties could not come to an agreement 

regarding Defendants’ motion to re-depose Plaintiff Grisham. The parties believe 

their briefing on these issues adequately supports their relative positions and will 

be prepared for argument at the currently set hearing.

3. Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave, Motion to Compel Depositions, Motion to Show 

Cause, and Request for Sanctions [Dkt 35].

Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 46 Filed 08/26/21 Page 3 of 6
Grisham et al v. Valenciano et al: Joint Advisory – Discovery Disputes, August 2021 Page 4

RELIEF REQUESTED: 

a. Plaintiffs are requesting to depose Chief Valenciano, and any other fact 

witness as it pertains to Defendants’ PowerPoint previously filed under seal 

[Dkt 39].

b. Plaintiffs are requesting that Defendants show cause to identify the legal basis 

for collecting sensitive data on Plaintiffs’ counsel and family members. 

STATUS OF CONFERRAL: The parties were not able to reach a resolution on this 

motion.

SUMMARY OF CONFERRAL: 

a. Despite their good faith conferral, the parties could not come to an agreement regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to compel the re-deposition of Defendant Valenciano. During the 

conference, Plaintiff made a subsequent proposal to share in the cost of the 

deposition(s) in addition to limiting the deposition(s) to two hours with the focus on 

the PowerPoint. Defendants refused. The parties believe their briefing on these issues 

adequately supports their relative positions and will be prepared for argument at the 

currently set hearing.

b. Despite their good faith conferral, the parties could not come to an agreement regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Show Cause. The parties believe their briefing on these issues 

adequately supports their relative positions and will be prepared for argument at the 

currently set hearing.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order. (Filed in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ Response 

to Defendants’ Motion to Compel, Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions)

[Dkt 36].

RELIEF REQUESTED: This motion is related to Defendants’ Motion to Compel 

Grisham’s deposition [Dkt 33]. Plaintiffs are requesting the Court grant a protective 

order to prevent Plaintiff Grisham from having to respond to specific lines of 

questioning. 

Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 46 Filed 08/26/21 Page 4 of 6
Grisham et al v. Valenciano et al: Joint Advisory – Discovery Disputes, August 2021 Page 5

STATUS OF CONFERRAL: The parties were not able to reach a resolution on this 

motion.

SUMMARY OF CONFERRAL: Despite their good faith conferral, the parties could not 

come to an agreement regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for a protective order related to 

Plaintiff’s deposition. The parties believe their briefing on these issues adequately supports 

their relative positions and will be prepared for argument at the currently set hearing.

CONCLUSION

In summation, despite of the above-referenced agreements between the parties, the parties

were unable to come to a resolution regarding several issues. 

Respectfully submitted,

GRABLE GRIMSHAW MORA PLLC

1603 Babcock Road, Suite 280 

San Antonio, Texas 78229 

Telephone: (210) 963-5297

Facsimile: (210) 641-3332

brandon@ggm.law

austin@ggm.law

By: /s/Brandon J. Grable

BRANDON J. GRABLE

Texas State Bar No. 24086983

AUSTIN M. REYNA 

Texas State Bar No. 24118645

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

DENTON NAVARRO ROCHA BERNAL & ZECH

A Professional Corporation

2517 North Main Avenue

San Antonio, Texas 78212

Telephone: (210) 227-3243

Facsimile: (210) 225-4481

pbernal@rampagelaw.com

Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 46 Filed 08/26/21 Page 5 of 6
Grisham et al v. Valenciano et al: Joint Advisory – Discovery Disputes, August 2021 Page 6

aruiz@rampagelaw.com

By: /s/Adolfo Ruiz (signed with permission)

PATRICK C. BERNAL

State Bar No. 02208750

ADOLFO RUIZ

State Bar No. 17385600

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 46 Filed 08/26/21 Page 6 of 6