,V<s '*-» 4'- y-sj>'-

■ - /*. S-tsT' /^. yW

r •*£"

!> ■- #^ ■ _ ._. ££ft£s*Q.*, V

k . 18140112457^0037

Cause No. 2014-CI-12457 JOHN M. DONOHUE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § § V. § § 57th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SAN ANTONIO POLICE § DEPARTMENT; SAN ANTONIO CHIEF § OF POLICE; OFFICER DOMINGUEZ, § BADGE #798; OFFICER JOHN DOE; § BEXAR COUNTY EMS; § INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, § Defendants § 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 s claims against Perla Dominguez and Kevin Nakata are dismissed with prejudice. «Chi<wa«aJuinol4tidfflR<»fe

Signed this _ day of January, 2015

\ \f D

P G

Cause No. 2014-CI-12457

JOHN M. DONOHUE. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § § § V. § § 57th JUDICIAL DISTRICT SAN ANTONIO POLICE § DEPARTMENT; SAN ANTONIO CHIEF § OF POLICE; OFFICER DOMINGUEZ, § BADGE #798; OFFICER JOHN DOE; § BEXAR COUNTY EMS: § INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR § BEXAR COUNTY. TEXAS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, § Defendants § 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

I 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 a 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