PAGE 1 OF 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO.: 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

DEFENDANT, DR. SANDRA GUERRA’S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM 

IN SUPPORT TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COMES Defendant, DR. SANDRA GUERRA (“Defendant” and “Dr. Guerra”), and 

files this her Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum in Support to Compel 

Defendants’ Discovery [Doc. 78] (the “Motion”), and, in support thereof, would respectfully show 

unto the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiffs incorrectly represent to the Court in Plaintiffs’ Motion that “the upcoming 

discovery deadline [is] June 15 [, 2022].”1

 The Scheduling Order [Doc. 70] provides that the 

“[p]arties shall initiate all discovery procedures in time to complete discovery on or before June 

15, 2022” but specifically states “[counsel] may by agreement continue discovery beyond the 

deadline, but there will be no intervention by the Court except in exceptional 

circumstances.” However, Plaintiffs failed to advise the Court in their Motion that the parties 

1 Motion, p. 2.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 81 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 5
PAGE 2 OF 5

previously agreed in writing to extend the discovery deadline until July 31, 2022.

2

 Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs’ request to stay discovery is premature. 

2. Defendant produced documents bates labeled GUERRA000001 – 000097 prior to 

Plaintiffs filing their Motion. Defendant has supplemented her production with documents bates 

labeled GUERRA000098 – 000183 as of the date hereof.

3. At its core, this lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt by Plaintiffs to re-litigate matters 

which were the subject of a 2008 District Court lawsuit involving the custody of the then-minor 

children of Plaintiff, Rodrigo David Cantu, and Defendant.

3 Plaintiffs’ allegations against 

Defendant in this lawsuit primarily involve a domestic/family dispute. 

4. Nevertheless, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiffs have also 

alleged various federal claims which present “federal questions under the Computer Fraud and 

Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1030(a)(2(C), 1030(a)(5)(A)-(C) & 1030(g).”4

 To that end, Plaintiffs 

seek, among other things, production of the contract between Defendant, Dr. Guerra, and 

Defendant, Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC (“DFC”) (collectively, “Co-Defendants”), which 

2 Ms. Nicole Guitelman confirmed Plaintiffs’ agreement to extend the discovery deadline to July 

31, 2022 via email dated May 25, 2022 to counsel for Defendant, Dr. Guerra, and counsel for 

Defendant, Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC. Ms. Guitelman does not appear as an attorney of 

record for Plaintiffs on any of the pleadings in this matter but is identified in the signature block 

of her emails as a “Law Clerk” at Tor Ekland Law, PLLC in New York City, New York. Mr. 

Ekland has appeared herein as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiffs. Rain Levy Minns filed a Notice 

of Appearance [Doc. 7] but has not corresponded with counsel for Defendant or actively 

participated in the litigation. Michael Hassard with the law firm Tor Ekland Law, PLLC filed a 

Notice of Appearance [Doc. 71] on April 20, 2022 but has not filed a Motion for Admission Pro 

Hac Vice. 

3 Defendant requests the Court to take judicial notice of Cause No. 2008-CI-18856, In the Interest 

of Sofia Elena Cantu and Maya Isabella Cantu, in the 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar 

County, Texas. 

4 Complaint, Doc. 01, ¶6.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 81 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 5
PAGE 3 OF 5

Plaintiffs claim is “at the heart of this case.”5

5. However, the contract sought by Plaintiffs is subject to an express confidentiality 

provision between Co-Defendants, Dr. Guerra and DFC. On April 8, 2022, Mr. Ekland’s law 

clerk, Ms. Nicole Guitelman, emailed counsel for Dr. Guerra to inquire whether “Dr. Guerra would 

be willing to waive the confidentiality clause in her contract with DFC” and consent to the 

production of the contract. In response, counsel for Dr. Guerra proposed that the parties enter into 

an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order in the form set out in Appendix H-1 of the Local 

Rules as a precondition to Co-Defendants’ agreement to produce the contract and certain other 

private, personal, and/or confidential documents requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs summarily 

rejected this proposal on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ counsel simply “does not agree that an Agreed 

Confidentiality and Protective Order for the discovery is necessary to provide the discovery in this 

matter.”[sic]6

6. “When a discovery dispute arises, opposing lawyers should attempt to resolve it by 

working cooperatively together. A lawyer should refrain from filing motions to compel or for 

sanctions unless all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute with opposing counsel have been 

exhausted.”7 Considering the parties’ acrimonious history (which is underscored by the parties’ 

respective claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other allegations of harassment 

set forth in the parties’ pleadings8), as well as the fact that Plaintiffs seek production of a contract 

which is subject to an express confidentiality provision between DFC and Dr. Guerra (and others) 

and other information of a sensitive and private nature, Dr. Guerra’s proposal that the parties enter 

5 Motion, p. 1.

6 Motion, p. 2.

7 Local Rule AT-4(e),

8 See Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Doc. 3] and First Amended Answer, Affirmative 

Defenses, and First Amended Counterclaim of Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra [Doc. 37].

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 81 Filed 06/16/22 Page 3 of 5
PAGE 4 OF 5

into an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order in the form set out in Appendix H-1 is a 

reasonable resolution to this discovery dispute. 

7. DFC agrees with Dr. Guerra’s proposal to enter into an Agreed Confidentiality and 

Protective Order and has agreed to produce the contract between Dr. Guerra and DFC subject 

thereto. 

8. In accordance with Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel for Dr. Guerra attempted to confer 

with Plaintiffs’ counsel again on June 14, 2022 and reiterated Dr. Guerra’s proposal that the parties 

enter into an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order to facilitate the production of documents 

by all parties. Mr. Ekland’s law clerk, Ms. Guitelman, advised on June 14, 2022 that Plaintiffs’ 

counsel would “reiterate [Dr. Guerra’s] offer to enter into an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective 

Order with [Plaintiffs]...and let [Defendants] know whether [Plaintiffs] agree.” Counsel for Dr. 

Guerra has not received a response from Plaintiffs’ counsel as of this date. 

9. With the exception of Dr. Guerra’s confidentiality objections to Plaintiffs’ requests 

for production, Plaintiff’s Motion does not address any other objections asserted by Dr. Guerra in 

response to Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production and Plaintiffs’ counsel has not conferred with 

counsel for Defendant on any such objections. 

10. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule AT-4(e). Consequently, Plaintiffs’ 

Motion should be denied in its entirety. 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, DR. SANDRA GUERRA,

respectfully prays that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum in Support 

to Compel Defendants’ Discovery and grant Defendant all such other and further relief, both 

general and special, at law or in equity, to which she may be entitled. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 81 Filed 06/16/22 Page 4 of 5
PAGE 5 OF 5

Dated: June 16, 2022. Respectfully submitted,

DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.

McCombs Plaza, Suite 500

755 E. Mulberry Avenue

San Antonio, Texas 78212

Telephone No.: (210) 822-6666

Telecopier No.: (210) 822-1151

 

By: /s/Ricardo G. Cedillo __________ 

RICARDO G. CEDILLO

Texas State Bar No. 04043600

rcedillo@lawdcm.com

BRANDY C. PEERY

Texas State Bar No. 24057666

bpeery@lawdcm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, DR. SANDRA 

GUERRA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 16th day of June 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

electronic notification of such filing to the parties on record. 

 /s/Ricardo G. Cedillo 

RICARDO G. CEDILLO

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 81 Filed 06/16/22 Page 5 of 5