,V<s '*-» 4'-

/*.

y-sj>'-

S-tsT' /^. yW

•*£"

!> ■-
#^ ._. ££ft£s*Q.*,

\f

JOHN M. DONOHUE,

Plaintiff,

V.

SAN ANTONIO POLICE

DEPARTMENT; SAN ANTONIO CHIEF

OF POLICE; OFFICER DOMINGUEZ,

BADGE #798; OFFICER JOHN DOE;

BEXAR COUNTY EMS;

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR

OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendants

Cause No. 2014-CI-12457

18140112457^0037

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

57th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER

CAME ON THIS DAY TO BE HEARD Defendant Perla Dominguez's Motion to

Dismiss and Defendant Kevin Nakata's Motion to Dismiss and upon consideration of said

Motion, the papers in this cause and the relevant law, it being deemed that good cause exists for

granting same;

-IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Perla

Dominguez's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Kevin Nakata's Motion to Dismiss are

GRANTED. All of Plaintiff claims against Perla Dominguez and Kevin Nakata are dismissed

with prejudice. «Chi<wa«aJuinol4tidfflR<»fe

Signed this day of January, 2015

200
Cause No. 2014-CI-12457

JOHN M. DONOHUE.

Plaintiff

V.

SAN ANTONIO POLICE

DEPARTMENT; SAN ANTONIO CHIEF

OF POLICE; OFFICER DOMINGUEZ,

BADGE #798; OFFICER JOHN DOE;

BEXAR COUNTY EMS:

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR

OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendants

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

57th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BEXAR COUNTY. TEXAS

DEFENDANT PERLA DOMINGUEZ'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO: John M. Donohue, Plaintiff

Duncan Unit

1502 South 1st Street

Dibolh Texas 75941

NOW COMES Defendant, Perla Dominguez, and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure provides these her Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories in

relation to the above-referenced lawsuit.

Respectfully submitted,

FITZPATRICK KOSANOVICH. P.C.

P.O. Box 831121

San Antonio, Texas 78283-1121

(210)207-7259

(210) 207-8997-facsimile

Mark Kosanovich

SBN 00788754

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby certify that on the 12th day of December 2014. the foregoing has been served to

the following interested person by U.S. Mail:

John M.Donohue# 1895073

Duncan Unit

1502 South 1st Street

Diboll. Texas 75941

MARK KOSANOVICH
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES

1. State your qualifications as police officer.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 1. The request seeks the production of

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

is over broad. The request also fails to identify the information sought with reasonable

particularity. However, without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant is licensed peace

officer in the State of Texas.

2. Give your job description and extent of your authority.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogator}' No. 2. The request seeks the production of

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

is over broad. The request also fails to identify the information sought with reasonable

particularity. However, without waiver of the foregoing objections. Defendant is a licensed peace

officer in the State of Texas.

3. State any disciplinary actions taken against you.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 3. The request seeks the production of

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

is over broad. The request also fails to identify the information sought with reasonable

particularity. Defendant also objects because the request seeks the production of information that

is protected from disclosure pursuant to Tex. Local Gov't Code §143.089(g).

4. Have any lawsuits been filed against you? If so, for what reason and what was the outcome

of the suit.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogator}- No. 4. The request seeks the production of

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

is over broad. Defendant also objects because the information sought by Plaintiff is not relevant

to the claims in this suit. Therefore. Defendant objects to the request.

5. Have you ever been under the care of psychiatrist or psychologist?

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 5. The request seeks the production of

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

is over broad. Defendant also objects because the information sought by Plaintiff is not relevant

to the claims in this suit. Therefore, Defendant objects to the request.

6. What crime was Donohue committing when you encountered him?

Response: Plaintiff was riot committing crime when he was first encountered.
7. When throwing plaintiff to the ground, while in the process of placing handcuffs, did you

intend to injure Plaintiff? And if so. were the injuries the intended injuries.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 7. The interrogatory assumes facts not in

evidence and is worded in an argumentative manner. However, without waiver of the foregoing

objection. Defendant did not cause or intend to cause Plaintiff an injury.

8. What was your reason for personally transporting Plaintiff to University Hospital rather

than have EMS determine the extent of injuries and take appropriate action based on medical

needs, rather than your personal, non-medical decision?

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 8. The interrogatory assumes facts not in

evidence and is worded in an argumentative manner. However, without waiver of the foregoing

objection. Plaintiff was transported to University Hospital because he met the criteria for an

emergency detention.

9. What were you feeling emotionally when you physically engaged Plaintiff and in your

statements that you were ''glad'7 he was hurting?

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogator}' No. 9. The interrogatory assumes facts not in

evidence and is worded in an argumentative manner. The request seeks the production of

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and

is over broad. The request also fails to identify the information sought with reasonable

particularity.

10. What provoked you into heightened emotional state of rage?

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10. The interrogatory assumes facts not in

evidence and is worded in an argumentative manner. The request, as stated, is harassing.

11. Do you feel remorse for your actions against Plaintiff and the resultant permanent

disfigurement to his arms that was caused by your aggression?

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogator}' No. 11. The interrogatory assumes facts not in

evidence and is worded in an argumentative manner. The request, as stated, is harassing.
_,^^«^
ftfifl'f