DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND EXERT DESIGNATION DEADLINE Page 1 of 4 

FP 44973287.3 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JASON WALTERS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

EXEL, INC. D/B/A DHL SUPPLY CHAIN,

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-01840-K 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT DESIGNATION

DEADLINE

COMES NOW Defendant Exel Inc. (“Defendant”) and submits this Unopposed 

Motion to Extend Expert Designation Deadline and, in support thereof, would respectfully 

show the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff Jason Walters (“Plaintiff”) filed his Original Complaint [Doc. #1] on

August 19, 2022 to assert claims against Defendant under the FLSA and COBRA. 

2. On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff was granted leave to file his Second Amended

Complaint [Doc. #19]. 

3. The Second Amended Complaint [Doc. #18] (“Second Amend. Compl.”) added

an additional claim against Defendant for Title VII discrimination.

4. On June 5, 2023, this matter was reassigned to Hon. Judge Kinkeade [Doc. # 33].

5. The Court thereafter sua sponte entered a Second Amended Scheduling Order

[Doc. # 41] on June 14, 2023. 

6. In relevant part, the Second Amended Scheduling Order requires the parties to each

file a written designation of their testifying experts and otherwise comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2) on or before October 27, 2023. See id. 

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID 664
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND EXERT DESIGNATION DEADLINE Page 2 of 4

FP 44973287.3

7. The parties mediated Plaintiff’s claims on August 14, 2023 but were unable to reach 

an agreed settlement [see Doc. # 46].

8. On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff provided his objections and responses to 

Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories (Exhibit 1) and Second Set of Requests for Production 

(together, the “Second Discovery Set”).

9. By the Second Discovery Set, Defendant sought information regarding Plaintiff’s 

claim for back- and front-pay as well as compensatory damages, which claims were added by 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. See id.; see also Second Amend. Compl.

10. By email on October 27, 2023, Defendant identified various deficiencies in 

Plaintiff’s responses to the Second Discovery Set, including that he did not provide the information 

requested thereby with respect to any specific mitigation efforts by Plaintiff. See Ex. 1; see also

Exhibit 2 (conferral email).

11. Plaintiff respectfully requests the deadline for the parties’ expert designations be 

extended to and including November 27, 2023, to account for Plaintiff’s amendment and 

supplementation of his prior discovery responses, in accordance with the Federal Rules. 

12. The requested extension does not include or affect any other deadlines applicable 

to this matter, including the current discovery deadline of January 15, 2024 or the trial date of 

October 7, 2024. [See Doc. # 41].

13. Defendant makes such request for extension not for purposes of delay, but so that 

justice may be done.

Submitted this 27th day of August, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID 665
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND EXERT DESIGNATION DEADLINE Page 3 of 4

FP 44973287.3

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Theanna Bezney

Annie Lau

Texas Bar No. 24057723

Theanna Bezney

Texas Bar No. 24089243

Fisher & Phillips LLP

500 North Akard Street, Suite 3550

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 220-9100

alau@fisherphillips.com 

tbezney@fisherphillips.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

EXEL INC. d/b/a DHL SUPPLY CHAIN

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that I conferred with Bob Whitehurst, counsel of record 

for Plaintiff, by email regarding the relief requested herein. Mr. Whitehurst advised Plaintiff does 

not oppose such extension request.

/s/ Theanna Bezney

Theanna Bezney

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID 666
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND EXERT DESIGNATION DEADLINE Page 4 of 4

FP 44973287.3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 27th day of October, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Court’s electronic case filing system, which shall send notice of the foregoing 

filing to all counsel of record, as follows:

Bob Whitehurst 

Texas Bar No. 21358100

WHITEHURST & WHITEHURST

5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363

Tyler, TX 75703

Tel: (903) 593-5588

whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com 

Donald E. Uloth

LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. ULOTH

18208 Preston Road, Suite D-9 #261

Dallas, TX 75252

Phone: (214) 989-4396

don.uloth@uloth.pro

/s/ Theanna Bezney

Theanna Bezney

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID 667
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID 668
 

 I N T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION 

JASON WALTERS

PLAINTIFF 

 

vs. CIVIL ACTION 3:22-cv-01840-C

 JURY REQUESTED

EXEL, INC. D/B/A 

DBA DHL SUPPLY CHAIN

DEFENDANT

 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND SET OF

INTERROGATORIES

TO: EXEL, INC. D/B/A DHL SUPPLY CHAIN, by and through their attorney of record, Ms.

Theanna Bezney , Fisher & Phillips, LLP., 500 North Akard Street, Suite 3550, Dallas, Texas

75201, tbezney@fisherphillips.com

COMES NOW, Plaintiff JASON WALTERS in the above-entitled and numbered

cause, and submit the following Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set

of Interrogatories pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Federal

Rules"), Plaintiff, serves these written responses and objections to Defendant's First Set of

Interrogatories as follows.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Plaintiff objects to each and every one of Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent they

request information or documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,

the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity from

disclosure. Production of any document or information subject to such privilege, protection

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID 669
or immunity in response to any of Defendant's requests is inadvertent and shall not constitute

or be deemed to constitute a waiver of such privilege, protection or immunity.

2. Nothing contained in any response herein shall be deemed to be an admission, concession

or waiver by Plaintiff as to the relevance, materiality or admissibility of any document or

information provided in response to Defendant's discovery requests.

3. Plaintiff responds to each of Defendant's interrogatories based on the information

available as of the date hereof and will provide information in his control, custody or

possession which is responsive to Defendant's requests and not otherwise protected from

discovery. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses as it may

hereafter deem appropriate.

4. Plaintiff objects to each and every one of Defendant's Interrogatories on the grounds that

individually and cumulatively the interrogatories are so broad and ambiguous as to constitute

a burden far in excess of that authorized or imposed by the Federal Rules or warranted by the

materiality of the information requested in relation to the issues before the Court in these

proceedings and that the information requested in large part is more appropriately and

efficiently to be obtained, if necessary at all, through other means of discovery. Plaintiff

further objects that it is not required to marshall its order of proof at trial in response to these

interrogatories.

5. Plaintiff objects to each and every one of Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the

information requested constitutes confidential, proprietary or commercially sensitive

information or information which is confidential and personal to the individuals involved.

6. The present of an objection to any interrogatory does not necessarily indicate that

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID 670
information responsive to the interrogatory has been withheld from discovery

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Describe all steps Plaintiff has taken in an effort to mitigate the

economic damages claimed in this Lawsuit. To avoid vagueness and ambiguity, “describe all steps”

means to identify each prospective employer Plaintiff has been in contact with; state the job title for

each position to which Plaintiff applied with each prospective employer; describe the job duties for

each position to which Plaintiff applied with each prospective employer; describe each category of

compensation offered in connection with each position (e.g., salary amount, method of bonus

calculation, 401k match amount, etc.); state the date(s) of each pre-employment contact between

Plaintiff and each potential employer; state the nature of each such pre-employment contact (e.g.,

online application, resume submission, in-person interview, etc.); describe the nature of any reply or

response received from each prospective employer; identify whether Plaintiff accepted any offer of

employment; if Plaintiff declined any job offer, provide all reasons why Plaintiff declined such offer;

and, if Plaintiff accepted any job offer and is not currently employed in such role, state the date and

describe the circumstances under which such employment ceased.

ANSWER: Tried several different places, such as ABC auto,, several truck leasing, different

positions, good prospect turned out did away with position. Logistic truck leasing

looked at managerl posiitons with local places, such as whataburger that were close by. Several

whataburgers owned by same people. Sent in resume, but nothing happened.

Plaintiff is a primary caretaker of his son Gunner. Gunner Walters was born in 2007 with a rare

genetic disorder called CDKL5. Since birth he has been totally dependent on someone to take

care of his needs twenty-four hours a day. He cannot walk, he is non-verbal, he is

developmentally delayed and has global seizures. He has been on multiple medications since he

was six months old. He has been hospitalized multiple times for respiratory illnesses and

seizures. In November of 2019 he went into respiratory distress and was transported to the

emergency room. He was later care flighted to Cook Children’s hospital in Ft Worth and

incubated. He ultimately had to have a tracheotomy placed in December 2019 due to his

declining health. Recently in May of 2022 he was hospitalized for a bleeding duodenal ulcer.

Due to all his health problems, he has multiple specialist who oversee his care and has many

doctors’ appointments that he must be taken to by his parents. In his day-to-day life he must be

watched constantly due to his tracheotomy and seizure disorder either by his parents or the home

health nurse on duty. He has multiple medications that must be given routinely throughout the

day along with medications that are given on an as needed basis. Along with his daily care

routine is diaper changes as he is fully incontinent, bathing, mouth care which includes brushing

his teeth and suctioning his mouth, he cannot eat anything by mouth and has a G-Tube and must

be fed a special formula through that tube continuously, which requires adding formula every few

hours in addition to the administration of the medication through that G-tube as well. G-Tube

care must be maintained as well and the tube itself changed out every six months. His heart rate

and oxygen levels must be monitored twenty-four hours a day with a pulse asymmetry machine

and oxygen is available as needed. He can not be left alone due the risk of seizures, oxygen levels

dropping or any kind of complication due to his tracheotomy. When nursing care is not available

the parents must watch him and take over all nursing care for Gunner. He has a very complex

health condition which requires constant monitoring.

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID 671
When Plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Plaintiff and his wife had in home nursing that

helped out with the care of Gunner. After the termination of Plaintiff, the in home nursing was

not as available, because of the expense, which is requiring Plaintiff to care for his son, Gunner.

Also see response to Interrogatory No. 16 below.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all income or financial support Plaintiff has received since

March 16, 2022 (including severance pay, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation,

disability payments, and any other State or Federal governmental benefits). To avoid vagueness and

ambiguity, “identify all sources” means to identify the payee of such funds, the basis for Plaintiff’s

entitlement to receive such income or financial support, the dates every payment was paid to and/or

received by Plaintiff from each source identified, the amount of each payment received, and any date

or event after which Plaintiff’s entitlement to such funds did or will cease, if applicable.

ANSWER: Plaintiff received unemployment for a period of time, after the Texas Workforce

Commission conducted an investigation and found that Defendant fired Plaintiff for a reason that

was not misconduct connected with the work. Payment received a weekly payment of

approximately $549.00. As set forth in interrogatory No. 16 below Plaintiff is a primary caretaker of

his son Gunner.

When Plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Plaintiff and his wife had in home nursing that

helped out with the care of Gunner. After the termination of Plaintiff, the in home nursing was

not as available, because of the expense, which is requiring Plaintiff to care for his son, Gunner.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: If you have experienced any condition which prevented you from

working between March 16, 2022, through the date of trial in this Lawsuit, or which imposed

restrictions on your ability to work during such time, describe such condition. To avoid vagueness

and ambiguity, “describe such condition” means to state (a) the date or date range during which

Plaintiff experienced the condition, (b) the cause of the condition, (c) whether you were prevented

from working entirely or were working under restrictions, and (d) the activities which you were

prevented or restricted from performing as a result of the condition.

ANSWER:

Tried several different places, such as ABC auto,, several truck leasing, different positions, good

prospect turned out did away with position. Logistic truck leasing

looked at managerl posiitons with local places, such as whataburger that were close by. Several

whataburgers owned by same people. Sent in resume, but nothing happened.

Plaintiff is a primary caretaker of his son Gunner. Gunner Walters was born in 2007 with a rare

genetic disorder called CDKL5. Since birth he has been totally dependent on someone to take

care of his needs twenty-four hours a day. He cannot walk, he is non-verbal, he is

developmentally delayed and has global seizures. He has been on multiple medications since he

was six months old. He has been hospitalized multiple times for respiratory illnesses and

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID 672
seizures. In November of 2019 he went into respiratory distress and was transported to the

emergency room. He was later care flighted to Cook Children’s hospital in Ft Worth and

incubated. He ultimately had to have a tracheotomy placed in December 2019 due to his

declining health. Recently in May of 2022 he was hospitalized for a bleeding duodenal ulcer.

Due to all his health problems, he has multiple specialist who oversee his care and has many

doctors’ appointments that he must be taken to by his parents. In his day-to-day life he must be

watched constantly due to his tracheotomy and seizure disorder either by his parents or the home

health nurse on duty. He has multiple medications that must be given routinely throughout the

day along with medications that are given on an as needed basis. Along with his daily care

routine is diaper changes as he is fully incontinent, bathing, mouth care which includes brushing

his teeth and suctioning his mouth, he cannot eat anything by mouth and has a G-Tube and must

be fed a special formula through that tube continuously, which requires adding formula every few

hours in addition to the administration of the medication through that G-tube as well. G-Tube

care must be maintained as well and the tube itself changed out every six months. His heart rate

and oxygen levels must be monitored twenty-four hours a day with a pulse asymmetry machine

and oxygen is available as needed. He can not be left alone due the risk of seizures, oxygen levels

dropping or any kind of complication due to his tracheotomy. When nursing care is not available

the parents must watch him and take over all nursing care for Gunner. He has a very complex

health condition which requires constant monitoring.

When Plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Plaintiff and his wife had in home nursing that

helped out with the care of Gunner. After the termination of Plaintiff, the in home nursing was

not as available, because of the expense, which is requiring Plaintiff to care for his son, Gunner.

See attached pictures of son Gunner.

Respectfully submitted,

_/S/________________

 Bob Whitehurst

State Bar No. 21358100

Bob Whitehurst

5380 Old Bullard Road

 Suite 600, #363

Tyler, Texas 75703

(903)593-5588

(214)853-9382

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID 673
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was

served upon the attorney's of record in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure

on this 7th day of September, 2023

Bob Whitehurst

Bob Whitehurst

Theanna Bezney

Texas Bar No. 24089243

tbezney@fisherphillips.com

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

500 North Akard Street, Suite 3550

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 220-9100

Facsimile: (214) 220-9122

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID 674
EXHIBIT 2

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID 675
1

Bezney, Theanna

From: Bezney, Theanna

Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 12:24 PM

To: Bob Whitehurst; don.uloth@uloth.pro

Cc: Lau, Annie; DALLAS DOCKET

Subject: Walters v Exel: Discovery requests

Attachments: DEF's 03 RFPs to PLF 102723 - Walters v Exel(48615890.1).pdf; DEF's 03 ROGs to PLF 102723 - 

Walters v Exel(48615870.1).pdf

Good morning counsel,

Attached please find Defendant’s Third Set of Requests for Production and Interrogatories to Plaintiff.

Additionally, a review of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Second Interrogatories (regarding his mitigation efforts) are

wholly deficient. For example, No. 14 asked him to describe all steps he’s undertaken to mitigate his economic damages,

which was defined to include a specific list of information in connection with each position he’s sought. Plaintiff

responded with vague and non‐descript referenced to “several different places,” “several truck leasing, different

positions, ... [and] local places, such as [W]hataburger....” We also note that Plaintiff’s document production included his

certification to the TWC claiming that he made 95 job contacts over a 30‐week period. Defendant requests Plaintiff

supplement his response to Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories to provide all information requested therein.  

Defendant further notes Plaintiff hasn’t supplemented his Initial Disclosures or his responses to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories to include his damages claimed in connection with his discrimination claim. Defendant requests Plaintiff

accordingly amend and supplement these responses, and any other discovery response that is no longer complete with

the addition of claims.  

Given the foregoing, Defendant also requests the deadline to disclose any experts it may wish to retain (currently set for

today) be extended to three weeks after Plaintiff supplements his discovery responses as requested herein. Defendant

would, of course, agree to an in‐kind extension of Plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to that same date.

Please advise whether Plaintiff agrees to the proposed extension.

Thanks,

Theanna Bezney

Associate

Fisher & Phillips LLP 

500 North Akard St | Suite 3550 | Dallas, TX 75201 

tbezney@fisherphillips.com | O: (214) 220-8325 

vCard | Bio | Website On the Front Lines of Workplace LawSM

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please 

reply to advise the sender of the error, then immediately delete this message.

Case 3:22-cv-01840-K Document 48 Filed 10/27/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID 676