13-12-00519-Cv-Clr-Vol 1 of 2

CAUSE NO.
2011CCV-61850-5
Jena Gonzalez
IN THE COUNTY COURT

AT LAW #5
VS
OF NUECES COUNTY
South Texas Veterinary Associates, INC.
Volume 1 Index
INDEX
1 2
Caption
Notice of Appeal Plaintiffs Original Petition Small Claims Court
Filed :09/02/11 Filed:09/02/11
3
4
Defendant's Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original

Petition
Filed:09/02/11
9
Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Directed

Verdict
Filed:09/02/11 Filed:09/02/11 Filed:10/10/11 Filed:10/10/11

11 12 14 17 19 22
Judgment
Jury Demand
Motion to Retain Cause on Docket
Agreed Docket Control Order

Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Defendant
Order of Referral for Mediation
Signed:11/07/11
Filed:11/16/11
Signed:03/08/12
Filed:03/22/12
Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel Brief in Support of Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel (faxed) Plaintiffs Motion for Protection from Discovery
23 33
Filed:03/22/12
Filed:03/22/12 39
0000001
Email from Jena Gonzalez
Filed:04/03/12
42 46
Notice of Setting
Filed:04/10/12
Defendant's No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of all of Plaintiffs Claims and
48
Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary

Judgment of it's Counterclaim
Filed:04/10/12
114
Defendant's Motion to Seal Defendant's No-Evidence
And Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of

All of Plaintiffs Claims and Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of it's Counterclaim
Filed:04/10/12
117
Defendant's First Amended Original Answer to

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Counterclaim
Filed:04/10/12
Jena Gonzalez's Answer to South Texas Veterinary Associates, INC. Counterclaim to Plaintiffs Original
Petition
123
Filed:04/16/12
125
Plaintiffs Objection to Authenticity of Documents Produced in Discovery

Pro Se Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jena Gonzalez's
Gonzalez's Motion for Sanctions
Filed:04/16/12
129
Filed:04/18/12
Filed:04/18/12
145 161
Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery Sanctions

Pro Se Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez's First Amended
Original Complaint
Filed:04/18/12
172
Pro Se Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez's Response to

Defendant's Motion to Seal Defendant's No-Evidence
And Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of

All of Plaintiffs Claims and Defendant's Traditional
Motion for Summary Judgment of its Counterclaim
Filed:04/19/12
177
Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Authenticity of Documents Produced in Discovery
Filed:04/23/12
ooooooia
STATE OF TEXAS)
COUNTY OF NUECES
At a term of the County Court at Law #5 of Nueces County, Texas, which began in said
County on the 03rd day of January, A.D. 2011 and will terminate by operation of law on the
05th day of July, A.D. 2012 by the HONORABLE BRENT CHESNEY, sitting as Judge of
said Court, the following proceedings were had, to wit;
Jena Gonzalez
In the County Court at Law #5

of Nueces County
-vs-
2011CCV-61850-5
South Texas Veterinary Associates, INC.
0000002
Kl#^ %'\'obO\\
^ JLA-%
\\&0}-U\K)^
'>7V-^-^
;l$j^>
MM 1 tttt
fl^cSSMS^
r~ m
1
~"~
N.C
<1J
"~i
cOV 1
<n
>
\
CO
=~^^'"'"
^SQ_J C~3 -f. " ^F*"; :'i
ro
-<
-o
Sr^l^^S';'-:
i
m ^3
m r--i
3 *^?J " ' g^rnfS'"1* ]rv!
î
'*^-o
CD
cr>
0000003
3k*ML &ONZ^Jc^
CAUSE NO
.apu-'sCi coc&\^
^0li(BJ^lS3D^
m
STICE OF THE PEACE
PCT.
3u
NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION SMALL CLAIMS COURT
PLAINTIFF'S NAME: ADDRESS/CITY/ZIP

TELEPHONE
.3111 ftncLK)5(iS Sh Cj>epiL5 Chasti rx Wtt

WORK TELEPHONE:
: 3lel-WL5-935<l
BUSINESS/WORK:
HEREINAFTER called PLAINTIFF(S), on oath, deposes and says that
;; ^QhCkL'Te.iocS ^Jt\tfLuML&(4 fe&DC}a&$ XMC ADDRESS/CITY/ZIP: W00 ÔM^ fe CpMltS> GMftSlti TX 7 J?f//
DEFENDANT'S NAME:
TELEPHONE: J ^ W ^ / /
AGENT FOR SERVICE:
: hitJLel Pz/t/zis , kvy/i

IfCorporation/Company ^gen/ to 6e Served (plus court costs)
HEREINAFTER called DEFENDANT(S), is (are) JUSTLY INDEBTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF
$ U.%51.530
IU n\\j
SUCH CLAIM IS, WITHIN PLAINTIFF'S KNOWLEDGE, JUST AND TRUE, IT IS DUE; AND ALL-JUST AND
LAWFULS OFFSETS, PAYMENTS AND CREDITS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. PLAINTIFF RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
PLEAD FURTHER AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.
(s) Signature
f.fejg-AQ^rx?
Signature of Attorney for Plaintiff
TX
FAX
m
.--j
)RESS/CiTY/ZIP {PlaintiffAttorney)
TELEPHONE
4
-<
m
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
'<EALCourt Cler:k/Notary Precinct
Public
rn
Nueces County, Texas
"'Umii'V
0000004
MILITARY STATUS AFFIDAVIT

SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT SEC. 201 (b)
Case No. r^Q\\ -SOQDOV~^Â
In the Justice Court
3eM<L (jdntaIctPlaintiff
Precmct^
Defendant ftfSOCiCbkS IX/v7CLr
BEFOREME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
who, under oath and penalty of perjury, stated that the following facts are true:
I am the Plaintiff OAttorney of record for the Plaintiff inthis proceeding:
O Defendant is not in the military

O Defendant, is in military service
I know this because
1 am unable to determine whether ornot the Defendant is inmilitary service.
âjnt^Fs Signature
_^
^rt^pi~T) (_J) )
Attorney ofRecord Signature
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE M$^^k_ day ofC^JNt\\\SX\\ \^20j\_. Al_day ofCÔJNJî
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas ;
Clerk of the Justice Court (STRIKE ONl| i\ f
^ s /j?i
Penalty for making or using false affidavit - A pePson who makes or uses an affidavit knowing to be
false, shall be fined as provided in Title 18 United States Code, or imprisoned for not more that one
year, or both.
0000005
'"-''%
Jena Gonzalez
Plaintiff
In the Justice CouR^^ggfc^p^

Precinct No. 2-1
v.
South Texas Veterinary
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Defendant SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Defendant") files
this Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original Petition, and would respectfully show the Court the
following: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Defendant generally denies each and every
allegation contained in Plaintiffs Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof at the trial of
this cause.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing,
that Defendant go hence without delay, with costs, and for such other relief, at law and in equity,
to which Defendant is justly entitled.
m
i
-<
-o
m
TO m
100-506
Page 1
0000006
Respectfully submitted,
O'CONNELL & AVERY LLP
By:
1/aklL (T UA,
Valerie L. Cantu
State Bar No. 24012498
13750 San Pedro, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Telephone: (210) 824-0009 Facsimile: (210) 824-9429
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES,

INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant's
Original Answer has, this lQrvi day ofFebruary 2011, been delivered by certified mail, return
receipt requested to:
Ms. Jena Gonzalez 3717 Aransas
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411

r
1)oIau.<3- UÛ
Valerie L. Cantu
100-506
Page 2
0000007

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
I37SO SAN PEDRO, SUITE HO
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7B232

Telephone 12 I O) <2lO) 824-OOOQ 824-9429
EMAIL: VALERlECtgJ0C0NBEN.COM
Facsimile
February 10,2011
Via Certified Mail, RRR 7010 0780 0001 6593 6171
Justice of the Peace, Precinct No. 2-1
Attn: Court Clerk
^ I4 20U
4626 Weber Road, Suite 300
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411 Re: Case No. 2011-SC-00001-JP2-1; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; In the Justice of the Peace Court. Precinct 2, Nueces County, Texas
Our File No. 100-506 Dear Clerk of Said Court:
Enclosed for filing is the original and one copy of Defendant's Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original Petition. Please file-stamp the enclosed extra copy and return it to my firm via the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. By copy of this letter and its enclosure, Plaintiff is being served same, via the means
indicated below.
I very much appreciate your assistance with this matter.

Very truly yours,
o\\L Q. UMUl
Valerie L. Cantu
VLC/rll Enclosures
cc:
Via CM,RRR 7010 0780 0001 6593 6188

, Corpus .Christi, Texas 78411; *":""
0000008
Cause No.
Jena Gonzalez Plaintiff

v.
In the Justice Court
PRECINCT NO. 2-1
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
After considering the Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict, the Court finds that
Defendant's Motion is well-founded in all respects and should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff take nothing by this suit.
nd SIGNED this the 22na day of July, 2011.
2 =
X r
û^D
O -a
in
rn
rn
100-506
1
0000009
APPROVED AS TO FORM: O'CONNELL & AVERY LLP
[\
By:
M
Valerie L. Cantu State Bar No. 24012498
13750 San Pedro, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78232
Telephone: (210) 824-0009 Facsimile: (210) 824-9429

SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ms. Jena Gonzalez

3717 Aransas

PLAINTIFF, PRO SE
100-506
2
0000010
IN THE
JUSTICE TWO
CIVIL COURT PLACE ONE
PRECINCT
NUECES COUNTY,
TEXAS
JUDGMENT
CAUSE NO.
2011
JC
00001
JP2
1-
5
Jena Gonzalez VS
South Texas Veterinary Associates,
Inc.
On 7/22/2011, came to be heard the above entitled and numbered cause, and
came the Plaintiff of record in person and the Defendant of record in person
and announced ready for trial, and no jury having been demanded the entire matter was submitted to the Court who after hearing and considering the pleadings and evidence and argument of both parties, is of the opinion and so finds for the Defendant, South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc., against the
Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff,
Jena
Gonzalez,
Associates,
shall
Inc.
recover
nothing
from
Defendant,
South
Texas
Veterinary
Signed and entered on 7/22/2011.
W^>W Ja#TK Stoner

-,vx x .
Q^QUw
m
%,cOUN^\,^v
",,,',,,
Justice of the Peace

Precinct 2-1
Texas
o
t
Nueces County,
en
-<
m ;o
rn
0000011
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
IN THE COUNTY COURT
PLAINTIFF
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
JURY DEMAND
COME NOW, Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, and asserts her right under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by jury on
all issues. Ajuryfeeof $30.00 was tendered to the Court.
Dated the 10th dayof October, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
3717 Aransas St.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411 Telephone: (361) 425-9359
Pg-1
0000012
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above and forgoing pleading or
document has been served upon all attorneys of and any parties who are not represented by an
attorney on this 10th day October 2011, by certified mail, return receipt requested to:
Attorney for: Attorney's name:
Attorney's address:
South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. O'Connell & Avery LLP

Valerie L. Cantu
13750 San Pedro, Suite 110

San Antonio, Texas 78232
Pg-2 0000013
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ PLAINTIFF
IN THE COUNTY COURT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
MOTION TO RETAIN CAUSE ON DOCKET
Jena Gonzalez, Pro Se Plaintiff files this Motion to Retain this Cause on the Docket
1. Plaintiff desires to pursue this cause of action and a disposition of this cause of action will occur within a reasonable length of time; for which reason Plaintiff requests the Court to remove this case
from the dismissal docket.
2. Under FRCP 26(F) I have requested by certified mail, return receipt requested on October 10,
2011, a conference with the Defendant's attorney to discuss the case and prepare a Joint Report
of Early Meeting.
PRAYER
Plaintiff prays that this cause be retained on the trial docket and that it be removed from the
dismissal docket set for October 28, 2011, and that Plaintiff have such other and further relief to which plaintiff may show plaintiff to be justly entitled.
BvC3fi^Q^
L> na Gonzalez, Pro Se-Plainti

3717 Aransas St.
Pg-1
0000014
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above and forgoing pleading or document has been served upon all attorneys of and any parties who are not represented by an
attorney on this 10th day October 2011, by certified mail, return receipt requested to:
Attorney for:
Attorney's name:
South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.

O'Conneli &. Avery LLP
Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney's address:

Pg-2 0000015
Jena Gonzalez, Pro Se Plaintiff

3717 Aransas St.

Email: gil4584ppeoplepc.com
Telephone: (361)425-9359
October 10, 2011
Via Certified Mail, RRR 70101870 0000 7697 7972
0'Connell& Avery LLP

Attn: Valerie L. Cantu
Re:
Case No. 2011-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; County Court At
Law No.5, Nueces County, Texas

Dear Ms. Cantu:
In reference to the above case and FRCP 26(f) Iwould like to schedule a conference to discuss the following and
prepare a Joint Report of Early Meeting:
1. Discuss the basis of claims.
2. Discuss whether there isa way to resolve the case early through settlement.
3. Arrange for initial disclosure ofinformation by both sides as required by Rule 26(a) (1), including:
a. The exchange of names and contact information of every person who is likely to have
information about the issues; AND
b. Listing certain documents described in Rule 26(a).

4. Develop a proposed discovery plan.
5. Motion Schedule.
6. Additional Parties.
7. Expert Witnesses.
8. Trial Estimate.
Sincerely,
001G
7-2011 U:56AM0o.'CONNEU & BENJAMIN
NO. 5290
P. 3
Cause No. 20*i-ccv-6185(W

Jena Gonzalez
^Plaintiff
v.
IN ibeCotwty Court
AtLawNo.5
Soxm Texasveterinary
Associates, toe.
Defendant
Nueces Cowry, Texas
AGREED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
The Courthereby issiles fte following Ajjreed DocketComrol Order:
1. ^deadline for , pffltie3 , ^ ^^ ^^^ ^ ^

AfirijJO,
Tex.ReofCiviScedjS^SSS"^*
4,
Te^R.IeofCivi.Predurel^SS^^^^by
n onn ah -11' r. pcn witnesses, js to he concluded on or heW A-*n
6.
7.
enc<)uraged,tWSiSjânoider(omedZ^^^13' ^ mcdiaUon " Jury trial ofthismattei- is set fcr MONDAY. MAvt^^t-,
The deadline to mediate shall be Aterch_3o 20)2
whir* ^r.-
100-506
Pagel
NGV 01
0000017
m 7-M,l--5l#0'COIUIBHJ,
NO. 5290
P, 4
SIGNED this the ~^ day of
^T-leW
.2011.
JUDGE BrS^chI
ifiSEEg:
JpnaGonzalez
iSk-
ROSEPtAINTIFF
Corpus Christi, Texas 7S4U Telephone: (361)425-9359

and
3717 Aransas Street
O'CONNELLA AVERY, LLP

By;_
imt
KeirhB-O'Connell
State Bar Uo. 2401249$
Valerie L, Canto
13750 San Pedro, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Telephone: (210)824-0009 Telecopier: (210)824-9429
100-506
Page 2
0000018
Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

In the County Court
v.
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
At Law No. 5
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Undersigned counsel for Defendant SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES,
INC. ("Defendant") hereby give formal notice of appearance of Mr. Keith B. O'Connell and Ms. Valerie L. Cantu of O'Connell & Avery Law Firm, LLP. 13750 San Pedro, Suite 110, San
Antonio, Texas 78323 (Telephone: (210) 824-0009 & Telecopier: (210) 824-9429) as lead
counsel for Defendant.
Undersigned counsel for Defendant also give formal notice of appearance of Mr. Robert
C. Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales L.L.P. as additional counsel of record for Defendant and
as personal counsel for both Defendant and Dr. Darrel Ferris.
]
r rn
C3
C=3
-<
2=
Ty
o T>
> ~i <J1
o c
k^_yi-H^
yf' ^jJjrO
;\^"_ ^ '. !\
en
i
-<
~o
HI
3:
CD CD
fesl
V^"v-'
--U
m
hA><^^
100-506
i--j
Page 1
0&0019
Respectfully submitted:
O'CONNELL & AVERY, LLP
By:.
\lhit. (
Ahfjk,
Keith B. O'Connell

Telephone: (210)824-0009 Telecopier: (210)824-9429

and
HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES L.L.P.
By:.
Robert C. Hilliard
719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361)882-1612 Telecopier: (361)882.3015
100-506
Page 2
0000020
O'Connell & Avery

attorneys ano
llp
counselors
i37so s a n
p e d r o , s u i t e iio

Telephone (EIO) (2 I O) B24-0009 6 24-9429
Email:
VAi_ERrecftyocoNBEN.coM
. Facsimile
November 4, 2011
C'~* P1^ v^3\ ,-ifs ;. ;
ra \^ fta jVî ;V^;r,
Via Certified Mail/RRR 7010 0780 0001 6593 9035

Ms. Diana T. Barrera
JUSTICE
Nueces County Clerk

901 !.,.-'.vo;vd Street, Room 2'M
^PCT.2.PLi
', lECAS
Re:
Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates,
Inc., in the County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
Our File No. 100-506
Dear Ms. Barrera:
Enclosed for filing with the court is a Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Defendant
South Texas,Veterinary ;Asspci.atesj Inc.
Also enclosed is;a copy of Defendant's Notice of Appearance. Please file-stamp the
enclosed copy of this letter and return it to our fimvin; the'enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid
envelope.
We thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Valerie L. Cantu
/VLC ...:....-
Enclosures, as Stated
cc:
\ViarCM/RRR 7010 0780 0001 6593 9042, w/Enc.) ''/

Ms: Jena Gonzalez' ;=..-;" ^[-':
3717 Aransas
.'.. 'i~i'"" ^ ~%r

*' - ;'" '- "-'' '"-"
'.,.
*/'"
. ... Cprpus.ChdstiyTexas-784U' ;"
0000021
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW 5 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

JENA GONZALEZ
vs.
20UCCV-61850-5
SOUTH TEXASVETERINARY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
ORDFR OF REFFRRAL FOR MEDIATION
This case is appropriate for mediation. The Dispute Resolution Center of Nueces County is
appointed Mediator in the above referenced case and it shall designate its representatives. All counsel, or aparty representing themselves, are directed to contact Dispute Resolution Services at 361-888-0650 to
arrange the logistics ofmediation within Q_business days.
Ail counsel, or a party representing themselves, if any, shall be present during the entire
mediation process to negotiate asettlement. The parties shall proceed in agood faith effort to try to
resolve this case and shall agree upon amediation date within the next i^days and prior to the trial
setting (May 14, 2012 at 10:00 am). If no agreed date can be scheduled within the next \days, all
parties shall appear as directed by the mediator.
Referral to mediation is not a substitute for a trial and the case will be tried, if not settled at
mediation. Judgment will be entered as in all other cases, unless Dismissed.
Ifyou have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Lillian Fanning at (361) 561-6056.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
SIGNED, ENTERED and ORDERED this j. day of March, 2012.
Judge BrentChesney
cc: Mr. Emmet R. Reyes
Via Fax: 221-1917
Attorney for Plaintiff

Mr. Keith B. O'Connell
Phone #: 944-4529 Via Fax: 210-824-9429 Phone #: 210-824-0009

Via Fax: 882-3015 Phone #: 882-1612
Attorney for Defendant

Mr. Robert C. Hilliard
PATSY PEREZ, DISTRICT CLEP1"

WUFPFP CO'JNTV
0000022
22,2012 10:32AM
^gf
IFLL & BENJAMIN
). 6282
P. 3/1
Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5

v.
In the County court
at Law No. 5
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
this Emergency Motionto Compel, and would respectfully show the Court the following:
I.
This is a veterinary malpractice suit wherein Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed
veterinary malpractice in vaccinating Plaintiffs cat. On July 22, 2011, Plaintiffs claims were
tried before Justice of the Peace Janice Stoner. A directed verdict was granted and a take nothing
judgment was entered. Plaintiff subsequently appealed to Nueces County Court.

Plaintiff identified Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM as her retained testifying expert. On
February 29, 2012, Defendant served Plaintiff with its Notice of Intent to Take Oral/Videotaped Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM with Subpoena Duces Tecum. The duces tecum requests include production of all correspondence between Plaintiffs expert and Plaintiff and all
--n
documents and tangible things that form the basis of the general substance of Dr. RogersFmerital -< =:
impression and opinions in this case. A true and correctcopy of Defendant's Depositios^jNofice jr "^
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
t^l
C3
100-506
000023
MAR. 22,2012 10:32AM
.jjf JXONNELL & BENJAMIN
NO. 6282
P. 4/1
II.
On March 22, 2012, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Defendant began the deposition of Dr.
Rogers pursuant to its Deposition Notice. During the deposition, Plaintiff objected to producing
correspondence between her and Dr. Rogers and instructed Dr. Rogers to not produce
documents. Rule 192.3(e) dictates what aparty may discover regarding a testifying expert:
(e) Testifying and Consulting Experts. The identity, mental impressions, and opinions of a consulting expert whose mental impressions and opinions have not been reviewed by a Testifying expert are not discoverable. A party may discover the following information regarding a testifying expert or regarding a consulting
expert whose mental impressions or opinions have been reviewed by a testifying
expert:
(1) the expert'sname, address, and telephonenumber;
(2)the subject matter on which a testifying expert will testify;

(3) the facts known by the expert that relate to or form the basis of the expert's
mental impressions and opinions formed or made in connection with the case in
which the discovery is sought, regardless of when and how the factual information was acquired; (4) the expert's mental impressions and opinions formed or made in connection with the case in which discovery is sought, and any methods used to derive them;
(5) any bias of the witness;
(6) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of a testifying expert's testimony;
(7) the expert's current resume and bibliography.
Ttx.R. Civ. P. 192.3(e).
Plaintiffs objections are unfounded.
Defendant requests that the Court overrule
Plaintiffs objections and order Plaintiff and her expert to produce all material responsive to Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum and to order Plaintiffs expert to fully and completely
answer Defendant's deposition questions.
100-506
0000024
.MAR. 22.2012 10:32AM
JJ1QNNELL & BENJAMIN JÔ
NO. 6282
P. 5/1
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
Defendant
SOUTH
TEXAS
VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. prays that the Court set this matter for emergency hearing,
grant Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel, and grant Defendant such other and further
reliefat lawor in equity to which Defendant may show itselfjustlyentitled.

HILLIARD MUftOZ GONZALES L.L.P.
Bv:/ Wl^lJ^cKx,^^

6u /Mfi
4>J ^ c .
^Q^^rh^-
719 S. Shoreline, Ste. 500

antu Valerie L. Cantu
/w/o*-A-'rrr<^-

Telephone: (210) 824-0009

Facsimile: (210) 824-9429
ATTORNEYS FOR DEPENDANT SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
100-506
0000025
MAR. 22.2012 10:32AM
^0 JJ10NNELL
& BENJAMIN
NO. 6282
P. 6/1
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above andforegoing Defendant's
Original Answer has, this 22nd day ofMarch, 2012, been delivered by hand delivery to:
Ms. Jena Gonzalez
3717 Aransas
0>y /*M& Uf^~*VSfVValerie L. Cantu

CERTIFCIATE OF CONFERENCE
During the deposition, Ms, Valerie Cantu attempted to confer with Plaintiff, Pro Se,
regarding Plaintiffs deposition objections, butthey were unable to resolve this dispute.
Valerie L. Cantu
NOTICE OF HEARING
/wf as" **'/?*'
Pursuant to our earlier phone conference with the Court, this Emergency Motion is
hereby set for hearing on March 22,2012, at 1:30 p.m. in the County Courtat LawNo. 5 before
the Honorable Judge Brent Chesney.
100-506
000002G
MAR. 22.2012 10:32AM

FEB, 29. 201! 4:26PM
-vUONNELL & BENJAM 0^

O'CONNELL & BENJAMIN
NO. 6282
P. 7/1"
). 6071
P. 9/12-
I3F1X)
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
Jena Gonzalez
plaintiff
V.
IntheCounty Court
at Law No, 5
South Texas veterinary Associates, Inc.

Defendant
Nueces County, Texas INTENT TOTAKE ORALATDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS. DVM
DEFENDANT SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC.'S NOTICE OF

TO: ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS, DVM
By and through Plaintiffs attorney.

Mr, Ernmstt R.Reyes
The Law Office ofEmmctt R, Reyes, PLLC

P. O. Box 6830
Corpus Christi, Texas78466-6830

Physical Address:
722 Elizabeth Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404 Please take notice that, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 199.2, on the date and
time indicated followmg your receipt of this Notice, the undersigned attouieye will take the
following oral deposition before acertified stenographic court reporter and avideographer:
WITNESS: DATE:
TIME:
Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM March 23,2012

9:30 fljn.
PLACE:
The Law Officeof Emwett R. Reyes, PLLC

722 Elizabeth Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404 Telephone! (361)944-4529
100-306
Page!
0000027
22.2012 10:33AM
FEB. 29,2012 4;27PM
WONNELL & BENJAMIN

O'CONNELL UENJAMIJI
'
NO, 6282
MO, 6071
P. 3/1
P. 10/12
REPORTER:
DEPOTEXAS
500 Grecmille Avenne, Suite 445
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone! (214)373-4977
Pursuant to Texas Me of Civil Procedure 199.5, you are requested to produce at the
deposition all ofthe documents and other tangible things listed on the attached Exhibit "A." Tlie deposition will continue from day to day until completed or adjourned. All parties
are invited to attend and cross-examine. The deposition and answers are to be read into evidence
upon trial of the said cause. Additionally, the deposition videotape is to be played into evidence
upontrial of the said cause,
O'CONNELL& AVERY, LLP
By
faWl UmMI
Keith B, O'Conuell State Bar No. 15179700
Valerie L. Cantu
Telephone: (210)824-0009 Telecopier: (210) 824-9429

ATTORNEYS FOR DEPENDANT
INC.
100-506
\1
0000028
MAR. 22.2012 10:33AM

FEB, 29. 2012 4:27PM
O^NNELL &BENJAMI
O'CONNELL &
NO. 6282
X6071
P. 9/1
P. 11/12
This is to certify that atrue and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has
been served on the following oounsel of record, viafacsimile transmission, on this the jilii day
ofFebruary 2012:
Mr. Emmett R. Reyes
The Law Office ofEmmett R. Reyes, PLLC

P.O. Box 6830
Corpus Christi, Texas 78466-6830 Physical Addre^-y

722 Elisabeth Street

P
ML{. WJal
Valerie L, Cantu
100-506
Pages
0000029
MAR, 22.2012 10:33AM

FEB. 29,2012 4:27PM
.OÔNNELL &BENJAMIN
O'CONNELL & BENJAMIN
NO. 6282 P. 10/1

NC. 6071 P. 12/12
EXHIBIT "A"
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

Regnested Documents
1.
All documents, tangible things, reports, models, and data compilations that have been
provided to, reviewed by, relied upon, and/or prepared by orfor Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers
in connection with Dr. Rogers' formulation Or finalization of mental impressions and
opinions forthis case.
2.
3.
All documents and tangible things reflecting and/or forming the basis of the general
substance of Dr,Robert "Bob" Rogers1 menial impressions andopinions for this case.
Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers' current resume and bibliography.
4.
5.
Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers' entire file maintained in connection with his retention or work
on thislitigationmatter.
Any and all bills, invoices, and other documents evidencing compensation owed to,
claimed to be owed to, and/or paid to Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers in connection with this
litigation matter.
6.
All drafts ofany written reports created Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers as pan ofhis work on this lawsuit which regard Dr. Rogers' preliminary or final mental impressions, opinions, oranticipated trial testimony to be offered by himinthis lawsuit; All correspondence to and from Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez, Mr. Amulfo Gonzalez and/or Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez's legal counsel regarding any factual or legal matter relevant to
and/or at issue in this lawsuit; and
7.
8.
All correspondence to and from any persons or entities Who are not parties to this lawsuit regarding any factual orlegal matter relevant to and/or atissue in this lawsuit
9.
Texas Attorney General, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners)
All correspondence to and from any persons or entities (including, but not limited to, the regarding immunizations of dogs and/or cats, including but not limited to, regarding1 the
alleged proper types ofvaccines to administer to dogs and/or cais; the alleged proper time
frames or intervals of time at which to administer vaccinations to dogs and/or cats;
whether the current common practices and procedures of veterinarians practicing in Texas as- to dog and/or cat immunizations allegedly is appropriate and/or safe and/or the
beat practice of veterinary care; and threats by Dr. Rogers to file legal action against any
veterinarians practicing in Texas and/or against the Texas State Board of Veterinary
Examiners regarding marketing and/or administration of immunizations to dogs and/or

cats.
100-506 '4
0000030
'im\. LI. LM\l
\\)\ J/ftlV!
U lUNNtLL & btNJAMl
). 6282
P.
1/
O'Connetll & Avery l l p

iTTOHN5Y5 ANP COUNSjCLORB
I37BD SAN PEDRO, SUITE HO
San antonio, Texas 7B232

Telephone (2 I 0) BZ^-OOOS
EMAIL! VALCfilBC@OCOMBEN , COM
FacsImilC (210)
BSd'OOEQ
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: FROM:
March 22, 2012

Ms. Valerie L. Cantu / Michael M. Gavito
FILE NO.
100-506
MMG
OPERATOR:
TO:
FIRIVT"
NAME:
Ms. Lillian Fanning
Court Manager, Judge Brent Chesney, County Court At Law
FAX NUMBER:
No. 5,Nueces County, Texas (361) 561-6142

Ms. Valerie L. Cantu
T\ r--5
m;
TO:
FIRM
NAME;
FAX NUMBER: (361) 883-3411
!~1
TO C/S -j,-;
.:^
<") rî 0
on-,-,
--\
no
c:i _^
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE;
GO
3ô
MESSAGE: PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELIVER TO MS. FANNING

THANK YOU.
-en
TRANSMITTAL PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOUARE HEREBYNOTIFD5D THATANYREVIEW, DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS FAX OR THE INFORMA TION CONTAINED HEREIN ISPROHIBITED. THANK YOU.
MAIL THE COMMUNICATION TO US AT OUR LETTERHEAD ADDRESS. FURTHER, IF THE READER OF THIS
THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE ISA PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION AND IS TRANSMITTED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION AND USE OF THE ADDRESSEE, PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS COMMUNICATION TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT ARE ADMONISHED THAT THIS COMMVNICA TION MA YNOT BE COPIED OR DISSEMINA TED EXCEPTASDIRECTED BYTHE ADDRESSEE. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION INERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND
0000031
MAR. 22.2012 10:32AM
"CONNELL & BENJAMIN
NO. 6282
P. 2/10
O'CONNELL & AVERY
LLP
13750 SAN PEDRO, SUITE MO
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 75232

Telephone 1210) 924-0009
haIl! vaLeriec@dcdnben.com
Facsimile iz)o> B2i-9iZB
March 22, 2012
Via Facsimile Transmission: (361) 561-6142 Ms. Lillian Fanning Court Manager for Honorable Brent Chesney
County Court at Law No, 5
2310 Gollihar Road
Re:
Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates,

Inc., in the County Courtat LawNo. 5, Nueces County, Texas
Dear Ms, Fanning:
Enclosed for filing withthe Court is Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel It is my

understanding that Ms. Valerie Cantu has contacted you and confirmed that this Motion can be
heard today at 1:30 p.m. Ms, Cantu is currently in the deposition that is the basis of Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel, Ms. Cantu is hand-serving Plaintiff a copy of this Emergency Motion and notifying her of the hearing today.
Please call me with any questions at 210-824-0009.
Michael M. Gavito
cc:
{Viahand delivery)
J
CZD
rn
'--o
5;
- -

Valerie Cantu via fax: 361-883-3411
~o
~o rvi
>
* CO
i \
i
M-H-'' o 2 ~
t i
-<
~u
2=9
-.! T-' J
>
~~
i
'.
r'/-!;.
r-f,- ,'
rn
ô
i
CO
crj
":j
_,
'
v.
C- .
: .-
; >.,)
0000032
MAR. 22.2012 11:32AM
/CONNELL & BENJAMIN
NO. 6284
P. 3/6
CAUSE No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

v.
In the County Court

~n
South Texas Veterinary Associates, inc.
at Law No. 5
CO
Defendant
Nueces County, te^s
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
this Brief in Support of Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel, and would respectfully show
the Court the following:
I.
Rule 192.3(e) allows a party to discover evidence of bias concerning the other party's retained testifying expert. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e)(5); see Tex. R Evid. 613(b) (evidence of
witness' bias or interest is admissible for impeachment purposes); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W,2d
833, 838-39 (Tex. 1992) (holding that Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to discover
evidence of bias concerning experts); In re Doctors* Hospital, 2 S.W.3d 504, 507 (Tex. App.
San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding) (same). There is no privilege that applies to a party's communications with its retained testifying expert. See, e.g., In re Chrisius Spohn Hosp.
Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434, 438-39 (Tex. 2007) (holding that work product privileged was waived
when documents were produced to party's testifying expert; all material provided to a testifying
expert must be produced); In re Learjet, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 842, 846-47 (Tex. App.Texarkana
100-506
0000033
22.2012 11:32AM
UO UONNELL
& BENJAMIN
NO, 6284
P. 4/6
2001, orig. proceeding) (holding that videos shown to retained expert were not privileged and
were within the scope of discoverable material under Rule 192.3(e)). In Christus Spohn, the
Texas Supreme Court acknowledged the weight thatjurors place on expert testimony and stated "[g]iven the importance that expert testimony can assume, the jury should be aware of
documents and tangible things provided to the expert that might have influenced the expert's opinion." Inre Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W,3d at 440. In Learjet, the Texarkana Court of Appeals considered whether videos shown during a
mediation and that were viewed by testifying experts were privileged. The Court held that the videos were not privileged and were discoverable. The Courtstated: The rules expressly provide that a party is required to disclose the expert's mental impressions and opinions in connection with the case and any methods used to derive them, the facts known by the expert that relate to or form the basis for his or her opinions, and all documents, reports, or tangible items prepared by the
expert in anticipation of his or her testimony. The witnesses involved in this dispute are designated as testifymg expert witnesses, and the material involved is
the type of information that is discoverable under the rule. Inre Learject, Inc., 59 S,W.3d at 846.
In this case, all material reviewed or prepared by Plaintiffs expert is discoverable. In addition, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow broad discovery with regard to evidence of bias concerning a party's retained expert. There is no legal basis for Plaintiffs and her expert's
refusal to respond to deposition questions and to produce evidence that may have a bearing on
Plaintiffs expert's bias. Defendant requests that the Court overrule Plaintiffs objections and order Plaintiff and her expert, Dr. Rogers, to fully and completely respond to Defendant's oral
deposition questions and subpoena duces tecum.
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
Defendant
SOUTH
TEXAS
VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. prays thatthe Court set this matter for emergency hearing,
100-506
0000034
22.2012 11:32AM
M3NN ELL & BE
). 6284
5/6
grant Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel, and grant Defendant such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Defendantmay show itselfjustly entitled.
fflLLlARD MUNOZ GONZALES L.L.P.
Mr. Robert C. Hilliard State Bar No. 09677700
^ f*p\ 6
h,-^*viVJ*/>.

By:.
Valerie L. Cantu
Cc/W w^VS<?7 7
u,f /I<tf+*Ornr-

ASSOCIATES, INC.
100-506
0000035
MAR. 22.2012 11:32AM
)JO\ rcpNNELL
&BENJAMIN
NO. 6284
P. 6/6
This is to certify thata true, full and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant's
Original Answer has, this 22nd day ofMarch, 2012, been delivered by hand delivery to:
Valerie L. Cantu
Wrf"V*
100-506
0000036
MAR. 22,2012 11:32AM
J'CONNELL & BENJAMIN
NO. 6284
P. 2/6
O'Connell &. Avery l l f

ATTOWNCYa AND COUNSELORS
l3J3ti SAN PEORO, SUITE Il6

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 79233
Tel, epitope 12 I Ol e4-OQQ9
Email: valEBIecq?dnpen,cdm
Facsimile 1iO> 924-9420
March 22, 2012
Via Facsimile Transmission: (361) 561-6142

Ms. Lillian Fanning Court Manager for Honorable Brent Chesney County Court at Law No. 5
2310 Gollihar Road
Corpus Christi, Texas 7&415
Re:
Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc., in the County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
Dear Ms. Fanning:
Enclosed for filing with the Court is Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel. This Emergency Motion is set for today at 1:30 p.m. Ms. Cantu is currently in the deposition that is the basis of Defendant's Emergency Motion to Compel. Ms. Cantu is hand-serving Plaintiff a copy of this Brief in Support of Defendant's
Emergency Motion and notifying her of the hearing today.
Please call me with any questions at 210-824-0009.

Very truly yours,
Michael M. Gavito
r~
i" p
4:
^
ro
~o
cc:
(Via handdelivery)
^
CH
2.S
' ,,. (ft _
Ms. Jena Gonzalez

3717 Aransas
-^ ^
rn ^
TT

Valerie Cantu via fax: 361-883-3411
0000037
Mrti\. it. i\i\i
\ | ;i
WNNtLL & btNJl
).vm
Y.
1/0

13750 SAN PEORO.
SUITE IIO
San Antonio, Texas 7SZ3E

Telephone (10) 92^-0009 924-&42S
Email- VALERrec@ocoNBEN.coM
Facsimile IBiOl
EAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: FROM:
March 22,2012 Ms. Valerie L, Cantu /

Michael M. Gavito
FILE NO.
100-506 MMG
OPERATOR:
TO: FIRM NAME;
Ms. Lillian Fanning
Court Manager, Judge Brent Chesney, County Court At Law

No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
FAX NUMBER!
(361)561-6142
Ms. Valerie L. Cantu
"
TO:
FIRM
NAME:
FAX NUMBER: (361) 883-3411
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE:
MESSAGE:
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELIVER TO MS. FANNING

THANK YOU.
THIS FA CSIMILE MESSAGE ISA PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICA TION AND IS TRANSMITTED
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION AND USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING THIS COMMUNICATION TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT ARE ADMONISHED THAT THIS COMMUNICATION MAY NOT BE COPIED OR DISSEMINATED EXCEPT ASDIRECTED BY THE ADDRESSEE. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY USIMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND MAIL THE COMMUNICATION TO US AT OUR LETTERHEAD ADDRESS, FURTHER, IF THE READER OF THIS TRANSMITTAL PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANYREVIEW, DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS FAX OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ISPROHIBITED. THANK YOU,
0000038
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
IN THE COUNTY COURT _,
Plaintiff
tp= ? ^
v.
AT LAW NO. 5
* < g
IN. , 'V
i-0
-;>
~~~f OoP
^r (
ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendant
tJ J NUECES COUNTY, TEXJS rn
/ Jog
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTION FROM DISCOVERY
Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asks the court to protect her from the Defendant's South Texas Veterinary Associates', request for Subpoena Duces Tecum. 1. Pro Se Plaintiff is Jena Gonzalez; defendant is South Texas Veterinary
Associates.
2.
Pro Se Plaintiff sued defendant for Medical Malpractice.
3. Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 1 discovery control plan. The discovery period will end on April 13, 2012. 4. This case is set for trial on May 14,2012.
5. South Texas Veterinary Associates served the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum. South Texas Veterinary Associates' discovery request contained the following objectionable requests for question #7: Plaintiff objects that this request exceeds the
scope of discovery permissible under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it
includes information that is consulting-only, expert privilege, attorney-client privilege, and/or privileged work product Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asks the court to sign an order protecting her from South Texas Veterinary Associates' discovery
request.
6. Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asks the court to sign a protective order restricting access to and dissemination of all correspondence between Pro Se Plaintiff,
Jena Gonzalez and Dr. Bob Rogers.
7. Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asserts the communication is privileged as a work-product developed in anticipation of litigation for trial between the Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez and her retained testifying expert, Dr. Bob Rogers. 8. Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asserts the attorney-client privilege should be
extended to a Pro Se Plaintiff to ensure that confidential communication between Pro Se
Plaintiff and her retained testifying expert.
0000039
9. Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asserts the Subpoena Duces Tecum requesting all communication between Pro Se Plaintiffand her testifying expert is harassing and is an invasion of protested personal, constitutional, and property rights.
10. A trial court has discretion to protect a party with a protective order. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6; Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1990). The court has the authority to limit the scope of discovery based on the needs and circumstances of
the case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192 cmt. 7.
11. Pro Se Plaintiff; Jena Gonzalez, asksthe court for a protective orderbecause the
defendant's, South Texas Veterinary Associates' discovery request is harassing and

annoying. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b). Specifically, the Subpoena Duces Tecum is
harassing and annoying because the communication between Pro Se Plaintiff and her
retained testifying expert is not within the scope of discovery andask for information that
is not relevant and will not lead to admissible evidence.
12. Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez asks the court for a protective order because the
defendant's, SouthTexas Veterinary, request is overbroad. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192 cmt. 1. A
discovery request must be reasonably tailored to include only relevant matters. In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). The Supreme Court has identified as overbroad requests encompassing time periods, products, or activities. See, e.g., In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex. 2003) (request to identify all safety employees of defendant over 30-year period was overbroad); In re American Optical, 988 S.W.2d at 713 (request for production of almost every document relating to asbestos that defendant produced over 50-year period was overbroad); KMart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937
S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (request for information about criminal conduct at location
for seven years was overbroad); Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) (request for all similar claims from every store was overbroad). The request
in this case is overbroad because {explain, e.g., itasksfor "all documents relevant to the
lawsuit"}.
13. Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asks the court for a protective order because
the defendant's, South Texas Veterinary discovery request from the non-party, Dr. Bob Rogers, constitutes an invasion of his personal, constitutional, and property rights. Tex.
R. Civ. P. 192.6(b); Hoffman v. Fifth Ct. ofAppeals, 756 S.W.2d 723, 723 (Tex. 1988).
F. Prayer
14. For these reasons, Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, asks the court to set her
motion for protective order for hearing and, after the hearing, issue an order protecting Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, from the defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum question
number seven (7) by granting the relief requested in this motion.
Pro Se Plaintiff, Jean Gonzalez
0000040
fMYl
iiiUSr'Y!
^NUL. & BhNJMUN
NO. 6249
P.
EXHIBIT "A"
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Reciuested Documents
1.
All documents, tangible things, reports, models, and data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, relied upon, and/or prepared by or for Dr. Robert ;iBobr) Rogers
hi C-ouucCtiout with Dr. Rogers' foi'muJaUon or fuialization of mental impressions and

opinions for this case.
2,
All documents and tangible things reflecting and/or forming the basis of the general substance of Dr, Robert <:Bob!I Rogers' mental impressions and opinions forthis case.
Dr. Robert"'Bob" Rogers' current resume and bibliography. Dr, Robert "Bob" Rogers* entire file maintained hi connection with his retention or work
on this litigation matter.
3.
4.
5.
Any and all bills, invoices, and other documents evidencing compensation owed to, claimed to be owed to, and/or paid to Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers in connection with this litigationmatter.
6.
All drafts of any written reports created Dr, Robert ;iBob" Rogers as part of his work pn this lawsuit which regard Dr. Rogers' preliminary or final mental impressions, opinions,
or anticipated trial testimony to he offered by him in this lawsuit;
Ail correspondence to and from Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez. Mr. Arnulfo Gonzalez and/or
7.
Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez's legal counsel regarding any factual or legal matter relevant to
and/or at issue in this lawsuit: and
8.
All correspondence to and from any persons or entities who are not parties to this lawsuit regarding any factual or legal matter relevant to and/or at issue in this lawsuit.
9.
All correspondence to and from any persons or entities (including, but not limited to, the Texas Attorney General, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners)
regarding immunizations of dogs and/or cats, including but not limited to. regarding: the alleged proper types of vaccines to administer to dogs and'or cats; the alleged proper time frames or intervals of time at which to administer vaccinations to dogs and/or cats; whether the current common practices and procedures of veterinarians practicing in Texas as to dog and/or cat immunizations allegedly is appropriate and/or safe and/or the
best practice of veterinary cars; and threats by Dr. Rogers to file legal action against any veterinarians practicing in Texas and/or against the Texas State Board of VeterinaryExaminers regarding marketing and'or administration of irnrnunizations to dogs and/or
cats.
100-506
Pa*a4
0000041
Lillian Fannin*
From:
Sent: To:
Jena Gonzalez <gil4584@peoplepccom>

Sunday, April 01, 2012 5:19 PM
Lillian Fanning
Subject:
Attachments:
Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas VeterinaryAssociates,

Order for Mediation.pdf
Dear Ms. Fanning,
Re:
Case No. 201l-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; County Court At Law
No.5, Nueces County, Texas
Ms. Cantu, attorney for the defendant, advised me that mediation was not an option. The defendant's malpractice
insurance will not settle without approval from Dr. Ferris and he will not agree togive me any amount of money. She
advised me ofthis via telephone. Iasked her if she would be filing an objection to the court ordered mediation and she informed me she would. Ihave no knowledge ofsuch objection being filed. The deadline to schedule mediation has
passed. Just wanted to let you know.
Sincerely,
Jena Gonzalez
Pro Se Plaintiff
~n
r-o
"
'IS'
'
'X
cz
'&-
r.
m d3
i
-o
-Q
J^m^^
\~^&c~>-.-\
fcs_H o
Z-4
CO
PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
(/)
P-Jcr
vr
-<
-a
~*s^mr;;-<
\_o
' *
rn
"TO
l*t%>
>-*""^'
r?T
ro
f~i
CD
0000042
Lillian Fannirn
From:
Sent: To:
Jena Gonzalez <gil4584@peoplepc.com>

Sunday, April 01, 2012 5:29 PM Lillian Fanning
Subject:
Attachments:
Fw: Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates,

Order for Mediation.pdf
If Iam reading this information correctly sanctions could be imposed for failure to file a written objection to the referral
within 10 days of receivingthe notice. Thanks for your help..Jena Gonzalez, Pro Se Plaintiff
In Texas, a party has to object in writing to the mediation referral within ten days after receiving notice. The court, in its discretion, may or may not refer the dispute to mediation. Section 154.022 ofthe Texas ADR Act provides the basis for
objection to referral pending litigation:
(a) If a court determines that a pending dispute is appropriate for referral under Section 154.021, the court shall notify
the parties of its determination.
(b) Any party may, within 10 days after receiving the notice under Subsection (a), file a written objection to the referral.
(c) If the court finds that there is a reasonable basis for an objection filed under Subsection (b), the court may not refer
the dispute under Section 154.021.
In Texas Dept. of Trans, v. Pirtle, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals addressed the consequences for not filing an objection under the Texas ADR Act. See Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Pirtle, 977 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998, pet.
denied). There, thedefendant, the Texas Department ofTransportation, failed to object to the mediation then, it
refused to participate in the mediation. The trial court subsequently sanctioned the defendant. The defendant argued
that the defendant never settles cases asa matterof policy. The court distinguished Pirtle from othercases where the
duty to mediate in good faith did not apply. Gleason v. Lawson, 850 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1993, no
writ) (Court did not order the mediation); Hansen v. Sullivan, 886 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (The parties mediated in good faith but the matter could not be resolved); Decker v. Lindsay, 824 S.W.2d 247 {Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (Party objected to the mediation order but the court overruled the objection). Finally, the court of appeals, in upholding the sanctions award, found that the duty to mediate attaches when a party is
served with a mediation order and fails to object.
Forwarded Message
>From: Jena Gonzalez <gi!4584 (aJpeoplepc.com> >Sent: Apr 1, 2012 5:18 PM
>To: lillian.FanningfSco.nueces.tx.us
>Subject: Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates,

>
>Dear Ms. Fanning,

>
>Re:
Case No. 2011-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; County Court At Law
No.5, Nueces County, Texas
0000043
>Ms. Cantu, attorney for the defendant, advised me that mediation was not an option. The defendant's malpractice
insurance will not settle withoutapproval from Dr. Ferris and he will not agree to give me anyamount of money. She
advised me of this via telephone. I asked her if she would be filingan objection to the court ordered mediation and she informed me she would. Ihave no knowledge of such objection being filed. The deadline to schedule mediation has
passed. Just wanted to let you know.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jena Gonzalez >Pro Se Plaintiff

> >
>PeoplePC Online >A better way to Internet

>http://www.peoplepc.com
PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet

http://www.peoplepc.com
0000044
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW 5 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

JENA GONZALEZ
vs.
201ICCV-61850-5
ORDER OF REFERRAL FOR MEDIATION
This case is appropriate for mediation. The Dispute Resolution Center of Nueces County is
appointed Mediator in the above referenced case and it shall designate its representatives. AH counsel, or
a party representing themselves, are directed to contact Dispute Resolution Services at 361-888-0650 to
arrange the logistics ofmediation within1_J_ business days.

Alt counsel, or a party representing themselves, if any, shall be present during the entire
mediation process to negotiate a settlement. The parties shall proceed in a good faith effort to try to
resolve this case and shall agree upon a mediation date within the next VS days and prior to the trial setting (May 14, 2012 at 10:00 am). If no agreed date can be scheduled within the next J_pdays, all
parties shall appear asdirected by the mediator.
Referral to mediation is not a substitute for a trial and the case will be tried, if not settled at
mediation. Judgment will beentered as in all other cases, unless Dismissed.

If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Lillian Fanning at (361) 561-6056.
Thank you for your promptattention to this matter. SIGNED, ENTERED and ORDERED this JL day of March, 2012.
cc:
Mr. Emmet R. Reyes
Attorney for Plaintiff

Mr. Keith B. O'ConneJI
Via Fax: 221-1917 Phone #: 944-4529

Via Fax: 210-824-9429

Phone #: 210-824-0009
Via Fax: 882-3015 Phone #: 882-1612
PATSY PEREZ, DISTRICT CLERK

NUFHES COUNTY
Attorneyfor Defendant
0000045
Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

Jena Gonzalez
Plaintiff
In the County Court
v.
At Law No. 5
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
notice of setting
Take notice that ihe Defendant South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.'s NoEvidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of AH of Plaintiffs Claims and
the Defendant South . Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.'s Traditional Motion for
Summary" Judgment of Its Counterclaim are set-for hearing before the Presiding Judge of
the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May
1, 2012. The hearing will be heard in the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, located at 2310 Gollihar, Corpus Christi, Texas 78415.
Respectfully submitted.
O'CQNNELL & AVERY LLP
r.i
Keith :hB.'0'Connell/
State-Bar No. 15179700 Valerie L. Cantu

/*,. ..,: lfV*>iiS\
vJ
~n
.13750 San Pedro, Suite 110

San Antonio. Texas 78232
rn
o
?*<> :=0
O
Telephone; (.? 10) 824-0009 Telecopier: (210) 824-9429
~0
J5>
CO
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ?

100-506
Page 1
0000046
I hereby;certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
forwarded this ^
day of April, via CMRRR delivery, to the following:
Ms. Jena Gonzalez, Pro Se Plaintiff

3717 Aransas
fry /PUl?
Valerie L. Cantu
tr.fpG~*ntr$Co^-
100-506
0000047
Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

-TJ
Jena Gonzalez
Plaintiff
In the County Cour^

o
v.
At Law No. 5
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S NO-EVIDENCE & TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
and
DEFENDANT'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ITS

COUNTERCLAIM
this No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of All of Plaintiff s Claims and
(the "Motion"), and in support of same, respectfully shows the Court as follows:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
As exhibits to this Motion, Defendant attaches the following documents as summary
judgment evidence to establish facts in support of this Motion and hereby incorporates same, in
their entirety, by reference in this Motion:
Exhibit A:
Plaintiffs Original Petition filed in Small Claims Court and now part of the record for Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5 pending in County Court at
Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas:
Exhibit B:
a true and correct copy of excerpts and certain documents comprising

Exhibit No. 2 of the March 22, 2012 Oral/Videotaped Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, D.V.M.;
100-506
Page 1
0000048
Exhibit C:
a true and correct copy of the February 1, 2012 letter of Ms. Karen Phillips, Director of Enforcement of the TSBVME, to Dr. David G.
Shaffer; and
Exhibit D:
a true and correct copy of excerpts of the January 14, 2012 conversation
between Alan Garett, DVM and Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM.
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Defendant is a veterinary practice specializing in small animal veterinary medicine,

located at 4100 Santa Fe, Corpus Christi, Texas 78411.
On December 17, 2008 and on March 15, 2010, Plaintiff presented her indoor/outdoor cat known as "Kitty Cat" for veterinary care and treatment. Dr. David Shaffer is the treating
veterinarian who rendered the veterinary care and treatment in question to Plaintiffs cat. As part
of care and treatment of the cat, Dr. Shaffer vaccinated the cat, including administering an
adjuvanted feline leukemia vaccine to it. Nearly seven months later, on October 11. 2010. Plaintiff presented her cat to Dr. Shaffer
for treatment of a golf-ball size mass on its right rear leg, with a quarter-sized ulceration draining
purulent and/or necrotic matter.
Upon performing an examination and testing of the cat, Dr.
Shaffer diagnosed the cat with a suspected severe cellulitis and prescribed the antibiotic
Clavamox as the first line of treatment. Shaffer further advised Plaintiff that, if the cat's
condition worsened or did not improve within the next five to seven days, then Plaintiff was to
return the cat for a follow-up visit and biopsy. Plaintiff never returned to Defendant's animal
hospital.
Plaintiff subsequently presented the cat to four additional veterinary clinics. Ultimately, the cat was diagnosed with a presumptive fibrosarcoma (an aggressive form of cancer) and received treatment (including amputation of its right hind limb and chemotherapy), and the cat
later died.
100-506
Page 2
0000049
Plaintiff now sues Defendant for alleged veterinary malpractice in the following ways: failing to inform Plaintiff of the risk of the cat developing a vaccine associated
sarcoma;
failing to adhere to feline vaccination protocols; and
failing to properly diagnose vaccine-associated sarcoma in the cat, allegedly resulting

in the cat's death.
See Plaintiffs Original Petition filed in Small Claims Court and now part of the record for Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5 pending in County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas.
I.
NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S

AFFIRMATIVE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT
A.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
To prevail on a no-evidence summary judgment motion, a movant must establish that

"there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an
adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial." Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).
B. Arguments and Authorities
To recover on her veterinary malpractice claims against Defendant, Plaintiff must prove,
through a licensed practitioner of veterinary medicine:
the veterinary standard of care applicable to a veterinarian of ordinary skill and care practicing in the Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas under the same or substantially
similar circumstances;
that Dr. Shaffer's veterinary treatment of Plaintiffs cat deviated from the applicable standard of veterinary care; and that Dr. Shaffer's deviation from the applicable standard of veterinary care proximately caused Plaintiffs alleged damages and injuries.
100-506
Page 3
0000050
See Downing v. Gully, 915 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 1996, writ denied) (adopting
the standard applied to physicians and surgeons in medical malpractice cases to veterinary malpractice cases); accord McGee v. Smith, 107 S.W.3d 725, 727-28 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth
2003, pet. denied); Hight v. Dublin Veterinary Clinic, 22 S.W.3d 614, 622-23 (Tex. App.Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Hendrick v. Ashburn, 1993 WL 389197, at *4 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Sept. 30, 1993, writ denied) (not designated for publication); see also Community Life & Health Ins. Co. v. McCall, 497 S.W.2d 358, 364 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1973, writ ref d n.r.e.) (explaining that, "where the subject is one for experts alone and the court or jury has no experience in, or no knowledge of, the specialized subject, the unanimous and uncontroverted opinions of the experts are conclusive") (citation omitted).
Furthermore, "expert testimony on the standards of care is admissible only if the expert
can offer testimony on the standards of practice for the relevant or similar community." Bakhtari
v. Estate ofDumas, 111 S.W.3d 486, 494 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (emphasis added. In the instant case, the relevant community is the small animal veterinary practitioners' community
of Corpus Christi (Nueces County), Texas. See Hickson v. Martinez, 707 S.W.2d 919, 925 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref d, n.r.e.) (affirming that, with medical malpractice cases, the locality
rule applies, and citing Texas Supreme Court decision Webb v. Jorns, 488 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Tex. 1972), to affirm that the locality/community standard rule "does not require a small office of a rural medical practitioner to possess either the skills or equipment of a sophisticated clinic..."
and instead, the practitioner only must adhere to the standards of practice specific to his or her own community); see also Hall v. Huff, 957 S.W.2d 90, 101 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1997, pet
denied) (explaining "Th e purpose of the locality rule is to prevent unrealistic comparisons
100-506
Page 4
0000051
between the standards of practice in communities where facilities and resources may greatly
differ").
C. No Evidence of the Relevant Standard of Care Exists to Prove Plaintiffs
Malpractice Claims
To prove her claims, Plaintiff first must offer competent, admissible evidence of a Texas
small animal veterinarian regarding the standard of care applicable to a small animal veterinarian
of ordinary skill and care administering feline vaccines to cats in Corpus Christi, Nueces County,
Texas.
Plaintiffs retained testifying expert is small animal veterinarian Robert "Bob" Rogers,
DVM. For the past 19 years. Dr. Rogers has practiced at Critter Fixer Pet Hospital in Houston,
Texas, not Corpus Christi, Texas. See Exhibit "B," at 143:2-9. In addition, Dr. Rogers admits
he has no knowledge of the standard of care of small animal veterinarians practicing in
Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas:
See Exhibit "B," at 40:3-11:
Q.
So, when we look specifically at feline vaccine and vaccination practices
and procedures of Nueces County small animal vets, isn't it true that the vast
majority of vets are utilizing the same vaccines and vaccination practices as those
used by Dr. Shaffer and the Santa Fee Animal Hospital [Defendant]?
A.
I have no knowledge of the vaccination procedures for cats by the
veterinarians in Corpus Christi, other than of Dr. Shaffer [Defendant's employee], Dr. Ferris [Defendant's employee], and Alan Garett [Defendant's retained
testifying expert].
100-506
Page 5
0000052
Q.
And tell me, please, what percentage of veterinarians who practice in
Corpus Christi, Texas and the surrounding area adhere to vaccine and vaccination
protocols, practices, and procedures different from that done by Dr. Shaffer?
A. I have no idea.
Q.
Looking state-wide, do you have any idea what percentage of Texas small
animal veterinarians practice vaccination of cats with different vaccines and vaccination protocols than that of Dr. Shaffer?
A. I have no idea.
See Exhibit "B," at 47:815:
Q.
You don't know what the percentage of vets is that uses non-adjuvanted
vaccines or the vaccination procedures required by you - or advocated by you

across the State of Texas, do you?
A. No, I do not.
Q.
And you certainly don't know what Corpus Christi veterinarian are doing,
do you?
A. No.
Q.
And you certainly don't know what Corpus Christi veterinarians are
doing, do you?
A. No.
Q.
Do you have personal knowledge of what the prevailing standard of care is
in the Corpus Christi veterinary community?
100-506
Page 6
0000053
A.
When it regards adjuvanted vaccines in cats, I do not.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has no competent, admissible evidence of the standard of veterinary care applicable to Dr. Shaffer and Defendant. Consequently, Defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to summary judgment of all of Plaintiff s claims.
n-
TRADITIONAL
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
PLAINTIFF'S
AFFIMATIVE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT
A.
To prevail on a traditional summary judgment motion, a movant must establish that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response." Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). "If the defendant disproves at least one element of the
plaintiffs claims as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate." Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280, (Tex. 1996) (citation omitted); accord Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1995) (explaining that "[a] defendant who conclusively negates at least one of the essential elements of each of the plaintiffs causes of action ... is entitled to summary judgment") (citations omitted).
To recover on her veterinary malpractice claims against Defendant, Plaintiff must prove,
through a licensed practitioner of veterinary medicine: the veterinary standard of care applicable to a veterinarian of ordinary skill and care practicing in the Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas under the same or substantially similar circumstances;
that Dr. Shaffer's veterinary treatment of Plaintiffs cat deviated from the applicable standard of veterinary care; and
100-506
Page 7
0000054
that Dr. Shaffer's deviation from the applicable standard of veterinary care proximately caused Plaintiffs alleged damages and injuries.
See Downing v. Gully, 915 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 1996, writ denied) (adopting the standard applied to physicians and surgeons in medical malpractice cases to veterinary
malpractice cases); accord McGee v. Smith, 107 S.W.3d 725, 727-28 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth
2003, pet. denied); Hight v. Dublin Veterinary Clinic, 22 S.W.3d 614, 622-23 (Tex. App.Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Hendrick v. Ashburn, 1993 WL 389197, at *4 (Tex. App.-
Beaumont Sept. 30, 1993, writ denied) (not designated for publication); see also Community Life
& Health Ins. Co. v. McCall, 497 S.W.2d 358, 364 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1973, writ ref d n.r.e.) (explaining that, "where the subject is one for experts alone and the court or jury has no experience in, or no knowledge of, the specialized subject, the unanimous and uncontroverted
opinions of the experts are conclusive") (citation omitted).
C.
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is the official public
agency charged with enforcing Texas veterinarians' compliance with the applicable prevailing community standard of care, and the TSBVME found Dr. Shaffer to have adhered to the prevailing community standard of care in
his treatment of Plaintiff's cat.
Plaintiffs own expert, Dr. Rogers, acknowledges that the Texas State Board of
Veterinary Medical Examiners (the "TSBVME") is charged with the task of establishing and enforcing policies "to ensure the best possible quality of veterinary services for the people of
Texas" and to protect the public at large." See Exhibit "B," at 36:11-25. Dr. Rogers further
acknowledges that the TSBVME is "the governing authority, and police, if you will, for acts of veterinarians in Texas" and that the TSBVME requires Texas veterinarians "to adhere to the
prevailing community standard of care." See id. at 37:1-7 &38:11-17.
Dr. Rogers further
acknowledges that six of the Board Members of the TSBVME are veterinarians licensed by the
State of Texas to practice veterinary medicine. See id. at 37:8-22.
100-506
0000055
In addition to her civil suit, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the TSBVME against Dr.
Shaffer, accusing him of veterinary malpractice regarding the same veterinary treatment and care
at issue in this lawsuit. See Exhibit "C," a true and correct copy of the February 1. 2012 letter of
Ms. Karen Phillips, Director of Enforcement of the TSBVME, to Dr. David G. Shaffer. As part
of its investigation of Plaintiffs complaint, two TSBVME Board Members, both of whom are
Texas veterinarians, reviewed and evaluated Plaintiffs complaint. See id. Upon completing
their investigation, the TSBVME found "no violation" by Dr. Shaffer and closed Plaintiffs complaint. See id. The TSBVME's finding of "no violation" by Dr. Shaffer of the
applicable law or of the applicable prevailing community standard of care is competent summary judgment evidence establishing Dr. Shaffer's adherence to the applicable
standard of care and of no veterinary malpractice by him.
D.
Plaintiffs own expert, Dr. Bob Rogers, does not fault Dr. Shaffer or Defendant; rather, Dr. Rogers faults "the industry."
On January 14, 2012, Plaintiffs retained testifying expert, Dr. Rogers, and Defendant's
retained testifying expert, Dr. Alan Garett, both attended a professional conference in Orlando,
Florida. See Exhibit "D," a true and correct copy of the January 14, 2012 conversation between
Alan Garett, DVM and Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM, at 3:1-11 & 8:23 - 9:1-3 & 14-19. When
specifically asked whether he actually faulted Dr. Shaffer for malpractice or whether he
faulted "the industry" for the current prevailing standard of care. Dr. Rogers admitted, "I
blame the industry. I don't blame the vet."
In sum, the competent, admissible evidence establishes that, at all relevant times, Dr.
Shaffer and Defendant adhered to the relevant, applicable standard of veterinary care and that Dr.
Shaffer and Defendant committed no negligence/veterinary malpractice in rendering care and
100-506
Page 9
0000056
treatment to Plaintiffs cat. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to summary

judgment of all of Plaintiff s claims.
III.
TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT'S

COUNTERCLAIM
A.
To prevail on a traditional summary judgment motion, a movant must establish that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response." Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). "If the defendant disproves at least one element of the
plaintiffs claims as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate." Friendswood Dev. Co.
v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280, (Tex. 1996) (citation omitted); accord Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1995) (explaining that "[a] defendant who conclusively negates at least one of the essential elements of each of the plaintiffs causes of action ... is entitled to summary judgment") (citations omitted).
Pursuant to Rule 13 and 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant hasasserted a counterclaim against Plaintiff for continued prosecution of her claims against. Defendant, since Plaintiffs claims are groundless and brought in bad faith or for the purpose of
harassment.
Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claims against Defendant even though, as is evidenced herein, she and her retained testifying expert have no knowledge of the veterinary standard of care applicable to and practiced by small animal veterinarians of ordinary skill and
100-506
Page 10
0000057
care practicing in the Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas under the same or substantially
similar circumstances. See Exhibit "B," at 40:3-11 & 45:9-19 & 47:8-15 & 57:5-9.
Furthermore, Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claims against Defendant even though the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the "TSBVME"), via investigation of
Plaintiffs allegations against Dr. Shaffer and Defendant by two Texas veterinarians who also are
TSBVME Board Members has found no violations by Dr. Shaffer and Defendant of the applicable veterinary standard of care. See Exhibit "C."
In addition, Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claims against Defendant even though her own retained testifying expert has admitted he does not fault Dr. Shaffer or Defendant for any
wrongdoing. See Exhibit "D."
Lastly, and equally important, despite the foregoing evidence establishing no veterinary malpractice or any other wrongdoing whatsoever by Defendant and its employee, Dr. Shaffer, Plaintiff and her expert continue their systematic campaign against Defendant and its employee,
Dr. David Shaffer, including the following:
Plaintiffs retained expert Dr. Rogers and/or Dr. Rogers' nonprofit organization is financing Plaintiffs litigation against Defendant. See Exhibit "B," at 80:17- 82:15 &
83:7-86:25;
Plaintiff and her retained expert Dr. Rogers conspired together to determine whether the TSBVME would render its decision regarding Plaintiffs malpractice
grievance/complaint against Dr. Shaffer until after Plaintiffs original small claims case
was adjudicated, because Plaintiff expressly acknowledged and knew that, if the
TSBVME found no wrongdoing by Dr. Shaffer, its finding was competent evidence
100-506
Page 11
0000058
establishing no wrongdoing by Dr. Shaffer and Defendant. See Exhibit "B," at 95:9 96:18 & 99:5-21 & 110:14-18 & 116:1-118:6;
Plaintiff and her retained expert Dr. Rogers continue to pursue Plaintiffs claims against
Defendant and continue to seek donations of monies from third parties to fund Plaintiffs
lawsuit (including to pay for an attorney, even though Plaintiff currently is pro se), with Plaintiff and Dr. Rogers agreeing that Dr. Rogers will use the donations to sue the TSBVME for finding no wrongdoing by Dr. Shaffer regarding Plaintiffs
grievance/complaint. See Exhibit "B," at 87:14-19 & 89:20 - 90:24.

PRAYER
In light of the foregoing, Defendant requests that this combined Motion for Summary
Judgment be set for hearing and that, upon completion of the hearing, the Court GRANT this
Motion in its entirety and ORDER that Plaintiff take nothing on all of her claims and causes of
action asserted against Defendant, that Defendant prevails on its Counterclaim asserted against
Plaintiff, that Plaintiffs entire suit is dismissed, with prejudice, and that Defendant is entitled to
and is awarded all attorneys' fees and court costs incurred herein, as well as pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, and all such other and further relief at law or.in equity to
which Defendant may show itself to be justly entitled.
100-506
Page 12
0000059
By: 1uW U. Jr^lu^.Ur/^lvu^dW^

Mr. Robert C. Hilliard '

and
By:
MUllO"- UvduKeith B. O'Connell State Bar No. 15179700 Valerie L. Cantu


INC.
100-506
Page 13
0000060
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above and foregoing document
has, this Z> ~* day of April, 2012, been delivered via hand delivery, to:
3717 Aransas
JiJ/W bj^ Mfi^&s

alerie L. Cantu ' u/) aof*~cri\
100-506
Page 14
0000061
CjeAJO, (jd^TMCT^
CAUSE ffc^JUl^^^
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

PCX &^'
^PLCrh^ "Tzi&S hM-^hlCLltl^
75M/'^^^SSTOFS ORIGINALPETITION SMAJLL CLAIMS COURT

PLAINTIFF'S NAME:, ^ Y.
' "3"cjU^ i= (?oMZQJt-L Jf
77]~
q OiL l j
WORK TELEPHONE:
BUSINESS/WORK:
HEREINAFTER called PLAlNTtFF(S), on oath, deposes and says thai

DEFENDANT'S NAME:
****** 3>i- wtmAGENT FOR SERVICE
IfCorporation/Company Agent to be Served
HEREINAFTER caUed DEFENDANT^), is () JUSTLY INDEBTED TO PLAINTTFF IN THE SUM OF j> U.%5^ r0 3~J (plus court costs)
FOR (briefly describe the oatuce ofPlaintiffs tod ^dclaitn)
^ \j&ttitiL Ôt^^
PLEAD FURTHER ATTHETEMX OF TRIAL.
in\iff (s) Signature *
Mtt^JW/
Signature ofAttorney Tor Plaintiff

TX
-FAX-
>RESS/CrnVZIP (Wtfteryf.ôraeyJ
TELEPHONE
SUBSCRIBED AM) SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS A-D^Jgg C^>

'ftMXi
Coun Clerk Noi2i>" ^biic
VEAL
U -,20-1
Precinct *> ' \

0000062;
.^^âoî^^L^^^^Havî^^^
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM
CAUSE
NO.
2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
IN THE
COUNTY
COURT
Plaintiff(s)
VS.
AT LAW NUMBER FIVE
(5)
ASSOCIATES,
INC. NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendant(s)
9
it*******************************************************
10
11
ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
12
ROBERT
"BOB"
ROGERS,
2 012
DVM
13
MARCH 22,
14
********************************************************
15
16
ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT
"BOB"
17
ROGERS, DVM, produced as a witness at the instance of the

Defendant, and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled
2012, from 10:40 a.m. to
18
19
and numbered cause on MARCH 22,
20
5:21 p.m., before MARCY A. WELLS, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the offices of
21
22
DepoTexas-Corpus Christi, 1450 Wells Fargo Tower, 615 North Upper Broadway, Corpus Christi, Texas, pursuant to the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
23
24
EXHIBIT
25
6
DepoTexas - Corpus Christi
0000063
i\^ Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, D

APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S.

PRO SE
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MS.
VALERIE
L.
CANTU
9
10
11
O'Connell & Avery

San Antonio,
Texas
78232
12
13
VIDEOTAPED BY:
14
MR.
ART
CARROLL
15
16
ALSO
PRESENT:
17
18
MS.
DR.
JENA GONZALEZ
DAVID SHAFFER
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000064
)"Â Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, D

1
INDEX
2 PAGE 3
Appearances
4
ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS,
DVM
CANTU
GONZALEZ...
EXAMINATION BY MS.
EXAMINATION BY MS.
120 135
146
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS.
CANTU...
GONZALEZ
10
11
12
Signature and Changes

13
152
Reporter's Certificate
154
14
15
EXHIBIT
INDEX
16
DESCRIPTION
17
PAGE
Exhibit
18
1 2
Deposition Notice
E-mails
63
63
Exhibit
Exhibit 3
19
Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 6
7
Correspondence Correspondence
TBVME Notification Publications
63 63
63 68
20
Exhibit
Exhibit
Tabbed Publications
76
21
Exhibit
Exhibit
22
9
10
Antech Diagnostics Laboratory Test
Exhibit
Vaccination Record
128 128 (Attached;
Exhibit 11
23
24
25
0000065
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DV^L

1
36
10
11
12
13
14
Let's talk, a little bit, about the Texas

You're
State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.

familiar with that board?
A Yes, I am.
15
16
You understand and agree that the mission of
the Board is to establish and enforce policies to ensure
17
18 19
the best possible quality of veterinary services for the

people of Texas? A That is their mission.
20 21
22
And you understand and agree that the purpose
of the Board is to protect the public at large?

A That is their purpose.
23
Not to the protect veterinarians, but it's to
24
25
protect the people served by veterinarians, correct?

A That is the' purpose.
DepoTexas -Corpus Christi
0000006
^
Q
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVJ^
37
You understand and agree that the Board's
stated goals for protecting the public include assuring

that the veterinarians comply with the Rules of
Professional Conduct,
the Veterinary Licensing Act,
and the
prevailing community standard of care?

that?
You understand
Yes,
I do.
Are you currently a member of the Texas State
Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners?

A No.
10
11
You understand and agree that the Board's
12
members are appointed by the governor with the consent of

the senate?
13
14
Yes.
15
Do you understand and acknowledge that six of
16
the board members at any given time are actually veterinarians licensed by the State of Texas to practice veterinary medicine?
A Yes.
17
18
19
20
Have you ever been a member of the Texas
21
State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners?

A No.
22
23
24
25
000006?
'^^ Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DV^^
38
10
11
Okay.
Now, the Texas State Board of
12
Veterinary Medical Examiners, as the governing authority
13
14 15
16
17
and police, if you will, for acts of veterinarians in

Texas, points out that veterinarians are required to adhere to the prevailing community standard of care?
talked about that,
A Yes.
We just
correct?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000068
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers.^^M ;,^M
40
So, when we look specifically at feline
4
5
vaccine and vaccination practices and procedures of Nueces

County small animal vets, isn't it true that the vast
6 7
majority of vets are utilizing the same vaccines and vaccination practices as those used by Dr. Shaffer and the
Santa Fe Animal Hospital?
I have no knowledge of the vaccination
10
11
12
procedures for cats by the veterinarians in Corpus Christi,

other than Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Ferris, and Alan Garrett.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q0 0 0 0 6 9
Deposition ofRobert "Bob" Rogers, DVA^
45
And tell me, please, what percentage of
10 11
veterinarians who practice in Corpus Christi, Texas and the surrounding area adhere to vaccine and vaccination
12
13
14
protocols, practices, and procedures different from that

done by Dr. Shaffer?
A I have no idea.
15
Looking state-wide, do you have any idea what
16
17
18
19
percentage of Texas small animal veterinarians practice

vaccination of cats with different vaccines and vaccination
protocols than that of Dr. Shaffer?
A I have no idea.
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000070
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, D^M
47
Q
9
Okay.
Well,
again, you don't know what the
percentage of vets is that uses non-adjuvanted vaccines or
10 11
12
the vaccination procedures required by you --or advocated by you across the State of Texas, do you?
A No, I do not.
13 14
15
And you certainly don't know what Corpus do you?
Christi veterinarians are doing,

A No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000071
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers.^Wd ,lM/i

1
57
Do you have personal knowledge of what
6
7
the prevailing standard of care is in the Corpus Christi

veterinary community?
A
9 I do not.
When it regards adjuvanted vaccines in cats,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000072
DeooTexas - Corous Christi
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM- .
80
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The fact is, you funded part of the retainer
18
19
20
paid to Emmett Reyes to prosecute claims against

Dr. Shaffer's practice, true?
A Not me personally no,
21
22
You handed the monies to Dr. Reyes, correct?
You sent them to him?
23
24
25
MS. GONZALEZ:
Q
A
Objection, form.
Yes or no,
No.
Dr.
Rogers?
0000073
81
1
2
Well,
how did you come to be involved with
payment of Emmett Reyes?
3 4
I am on a board of directors of a nonprofit Critter Advocacy
making organization called C.A.R.E.S.,
5
6
7
Ethics Responsibility and Science.
That nonprofit
organization voted to give some money to help Jena with

this case.
8
9 Dr.
Q
Rogers?
Who is on the board of C.A.R.E.S.,
10
11
A
Coosbell,
Vicki Coosbell Rogers,

who' is her sister.
my wife; Valerie
12
13 on the
Anybody else,
C.A.R.E.S.?
other than your family members,
board of
14
don't
think so.
15
Okay.
So, just to be fair to you,
you,
your
16
17 18
19 20'
21
wife,
and your sister decided to give money to the
plaintiff's lawyer to help fund.her prosecution of claims against Dr. Shaffer's practice;
A Q
A
is that a fair statement?
Actually, Well,
I didn't vote.
your wife and your sister voted --
Sister-in-law.
22
sister in-law voted to give money to the
23
24 25
lawyer hired to help Ms. Gonzalez prosecute claims against

Dr. Shaffer's practice, correct? Objection, form.
-*
MS. GONZALEZ:
0000074

1
2
3
4
82
C.A.R.E.S.,
They vote for Critter Advocacy,

yes.
to give the money,

Q
A
Exactly.
That is correct.
5
6 was - -
And you're part of that organization,- it
I'm on the board.
8
9
Q
A
-- created by you; you're on the board?

Yes.
10 11
12
And you're her testifying expert,
conveniently, aren't you sir?

A I don't see a problem with that.
13
14
15
Q
simple:
. A
I'm sure you don't, but my question was,

You're her testifying expert, aren't you?
I am.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0 0 0 0075
O'Connell & Avery l l p

13750 SAN PEDRO, SUITE NO
San Antonio, Texas 7BS32
Telephone
(2IO)
B2H-OO09
Email:
Michaelg@oconben.com
Facsimile (2IO) 6 2 4 - 9 4 2 9
FAX
TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
FROM:
V/V/H.
Mr. Michael M. Gavito
FILE NO.
OPERATOR:
fQd ' S~$ L

MG
TO:
VALERIE CANTU (in deposition - J. Gonzalez v. S. Texas Veterinary Assoc.)

361-883-3411
FIRM NAME:
FAX NUMBER:
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE:

MESSAGE:
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELIVER TO VALERIE CANTU Error!

Bookmark not defined.. THANK YOU.
J oUêJ All C^rit ot&rvfu ib
THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS A PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICA TION AND IS TRANSMITTED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION AND USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING THIS COMMUNICATION TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT ARE ADMONISHED THAT THIS
COMMUNICA TION MA Y NOT BE COPIED OR DISSEMINA TED EXCEPT AS DIRECTED B Y THE ADDRESSEE. IF
YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND MAIL THE COMMUNICATION TO US AT OUR LETTERHEAD ADDRESS. FURTHER, IF THE READER OF THL
TRANSMITTAL PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, YOUARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THATANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OFTHISJWX OR

THE INFORMA TION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED. THANK YOU.
5-H0f;
7
'(""V -
0000076
83
Q
A
Do you feel that you have any bias -No.
Q
10 A
--or prejudice in the fact -No bias.
11
that you're the testifying expert and your
12
13
organization is funding the plaintiff's case?

A No bias.
14
15
Q
A
In your opinion?
Yes.
16
17
Q
A
Hand me that document, please.

(Witness complies.)
18
Have you funded any other plaintiffs, through
19
20
21
your organization, that are pursuing claims against vets

for alleged malpractice and administration of vaccines to
cats?
22
No.
23
Have you served as a testifying expert for
24 25
any other plaintiff who's alleged veterinary malpractice against a Texas small animal vet regarding administration
0000077
84
of
vaccines
to
cats?
No.
Just one guy in Indiana with his dog.
I'm going to hand you another e-mail dated
4
5
February 20th, 2012.

please?
Can you read that to the jury,
6 7
8
9 Mr.
A the money.
Q
Reyes?
"I will be going to the bank tomorrow to send I still need Emmett Reyes' phone number."
What bank did you go to to get the money from
10
Compass Bank.
I didn't go to the bank,
11
12
13
14
though.
Q
I said I was going to, but I didn't.

Does your organization have an account at
Compass Bank?
A Yes, I do.
15
16
q
A
And that's Compass Bank in Houston?

Yes.
17
I'm going to hand you an e-mail dated
18
19
February 16, 2012.

A
Can you read that top e-mail, please?

they can mail donations to
"For now,
20 21
22
C.A.R.E.S., 5703 Louetta,
Spring, Texas, 77379.
I will
have something set up by Wednesday with my bank to do

electronic and on-line donations. I will be out of town
23
24
until Tuesday.
I will have my cell phone.
Call if you
need something, Dr. Bob?
25
Who are you referring to, Dr. Rogers,
when
0 0 (10 0 7 8
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM .
85
you said "they can send donations"?

you're referring to?
A Anybody.
Who is the "they"
Q
A
Anybody who wants to do what?

Send a donation.
Q
A
For what purpose?

Well, you have the purpose of C.A.R.E.S.
I've received some donations from
there on the website.
9
10
people who are just sending donations to cares and it gives

the board of directors the discretion, what to do with it.
11 12
13 14 15
And isn't the below e-mail directly Gonzalez' case?
referencing helping fund Ms.

A It says, "Dr.
Bob,
I have posted our plea for Facebook pages, Chick
donations on the VAS support group, and the Cat blog, etcetera.
They have been going to your
16 17
18
website to look for a way to donate. plan on putting the information?

page?"
Is that where you
Should I build a separate
19 20
That's not a plea for donations in general. Gonzalez about
That's you having a discussion with Ms.
21
providing an electronic means for people to help you and
22 23
24
Ms. Gonzalez fund her case against Dr. Shaffer and his practice, correct?
MS. GONZALEZ: Objection, form.
25
Who's the author of the originating e-mail,
^ r\ n n n 7 Q
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM. ^1
86
Dr.
Rogers?
A I am.
3 4
Q A Q
correct?
Actually, who is? Actually Jena is. Talking about donations for her case,
Uh-huh.
Q
donations."
And you just said, "Well, this is for general"

That's not true, sir, is it? You're
10
responding to a direct communication from her about
11
12
donations received by your organization to help fund this

lawsuit, correct?
13
That is the correspondence there.
14
15
Q
to the jury?
Read the first line of that e-mail, please,
16 17
"Fundraising Op.
PayPal is great idea.
We
will get on it."
18
19
Q
A
Did you set up a PayPal account -No, I did not.
20
21 Ms.
Q
Gonzalez?
--to help donations come in for
22
No,
I did not.
23 24
25 haven't
Q A
Why didn't you? I just haven't gotten around to it.

had time.
0000080
^L Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVhi
87
Dr. Rogers,
I'm going
to hand you an e-mail dated February 13 from you to Jena
Gonzalez.
please?
Could you read that top e-mail in its entirety,
"You may need to contact this lady.
There
10
11 12
13
may not be any excess as the new attorney may be more

expensive. If you don't mind, how about any excess money
going to sue the Texas State Board?"

MS. GONZALEZ: Objection, form.
14
Did Ms. Gonzalez agree that whatever
15
donations came in that were in excess of her fees for this
16
case, that you and your organization could use them for
17
18
19
your own personal purposes of suing the Texas State Board

of Veterinary Medical Examiners?
A She did.
20
21
22
23
24
25
0 0 0 0 0 81
f^ Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM^

1
89
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(By Ms. Cantu)
Dr. Rogers, in an e-mail
dated February 6, 2012 from you to the plaintiff, Jena
22
23
Gonzalez, you were corresponding with her regarding the

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners ruling on
24
25
her complaint against Dr. Shaffer; is that true?

A That's true.
0000082
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM VM
90
1
2
Q
A
Can I see that back,

(Witness complies.)
please?
And as part of your correspondence to
4 5
Ms. Gonzalez, the plaintiff, you wrote that you are not surprised at the Board's finding and that, I quote, "I will
6
7
be suing the State Board over this."
On what grounds are
you going to sue the State Board of Texas Veterinary
8
9
Medical Examines regarding their finding of no wrongdoing

by Dr. Shaffer?
10
Misinterpretation of the law.
11
And what standing do you think you have to
12
13
14
bring a suit against the Texas State Board of Veterinary

Medical Examiners regarding their ruling about care of a
cat owned by Jena Gonzalez?
15
Well,
that's just more evidence.
When I
16
17
presented my petition to the State Board for a rule change,

they stated and they sent me a letter with a bunch of
18
19
mumble jumbo, which you have in your possession, but,

basically, one board member said he didn't think it was
20 21
wrong to give a vaccine to an animal that has no effect, and I believe they're misinterpreting the law and I have
22
23
spoken to an administrative attorney who has informed me

that there's very few things you can sue the State Board
24
25
for, but you can sue them for misinterpreting the law.
000008^
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM^
95
9 10
In a correspondence dated November 1st, 2011 the plaintiff, to you, she's advising
from Ms. Gonzalez,
11
12
13
you that she has a jury trial scheduled for May 14, 2012.
She then says, "Of course, the State Board ruling before
the trial could make or break my case. Any word on that?"
14
You responded to her in an e-mail dated November 2nd, 2011.
15
16
Read your response to the jury, please.

read it out loud, sir.
I asked you to
17
18 where
A
to
I'm trying to figure out who said what and

start.
19 20
Your response is the only one I want you to please.
read at the top of the page,
21
22
Okay.
I'll try to figure out where that is.

At the top of the page, "The State Board
Give me a minute.
23
24
has a backlog of 202 cases."

read?
Is that what you want me to
25
That entire transmission.
0000084
96
1 2
"They had three investigators quit or retire They only processed
and they are training three new ones.
3
4
eight cases in July, 22 in August, and 28 in September.

will obviously take ten months or so to catch up.
It
The next
5 6
7
meeting is February. attorney.
I am still trying to find you an
My nonprofit Critter Advocacy can put up 3 to
5,000 towards an attorney."
All right.
So, regarding Ms. Gonzalez'
9
10
11
question to you about the fact that the Board's two

independent veterinaries potentially finding no violation
or wrongdoing by Dr. Shaffer might make or break her case,
12
13 14 15
16
you responded, didn't you, that you checked into it and

it's going to take them ten months or so to catch up, so the case will go to trial before anything comes out? That's the gist of your communication back, isn't it?
A No.
17
18 jury
Well, I'll let it speak for itself to the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000085
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVU^ /^
99
1
2
going off the record.

(A BRIEF RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:38. We're
back on record.
(By Ms.
Cantu)
All right, Dr.
Rogers.
Before we took break,
I asked you if you had specifically
'instructed Ms. Gonzalez not to pay you for your work in
this case and you asked me to find the e-mail where that
9 communication took place. I'm going to hand you an e-mail
10 11 12
13
with the original communication regarding that issue from Ms. Gonzalez on July 15th, 2011 at 10:10 a.m. states, to you, which
"Here is a spreadsheet of my expenses I am asking

Should I add an amount for your travel and
to recover.
14 15 16 17
18 19
testimony?" 11:30 a.m. get paid.
And your response is right above that, at on July 15th, and it states, "I prefer not to
At every trial,
the defendant's attorney has My credibility
asked me how much I am making off of this.
goes way up when I can say I have never been paid. Dr. Bob." Did I read that correctly?
20
21
22
A
correctly.
I prefer not to get paid,, yes.
You read that
23
24
25
0000086
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers,(I|M nVM
110
10
11
12
13
14 j
15
You just testified all veterinarians on the

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners are
16
17
crooks and doing things improperly in regards to

vaccinations?
Yes.
19
20
21
22 !
23
24
25
U0 0 0 0 o 7
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DV^

1
2
116
Were you personally present when

the two doctors who handled the investigation for the State
3 4
5
6
Board of Texas Veterinary Medical Examiners considered the evidence contained in the complaint filed by Jena Gonzalez?
MS. GONZALEZ:
A
Objection,
form.
I couldn't have been there because it never
7 8
9
happened. Q
there,
You don't know that because you weren't
were you?
10 11 12
13
MS. GONZALEZ: Q A Were you there, sir?
Objection,
form.
I was not there when they made that
determination.
14
All right.
And you did submit, as part of
15
the complaint, a very detailed multi-page letter of your
16
17
18
specific opinions regarding what Dr. Shaffer allegedly did

wrong in treating Ms. Gonzalez' cat?
A Yes, I did.
19
20 not?
And you cited all your references, did you
21
Yes,
I did.
22
MS. GONZALEZ:
Objection,
form.
23 24
And Ms. Gonzalez presented multiple pages of
information, documentation about what she believes
25
Dr. Shaffer did wrong in treating her cat, did she not?
"
000008 8
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DV^W
117
She did.
2 3
And Dr.
Shaffer did not get a hearing either. Gonzalez to
He had the same opportunity as you and Ms.
4
5
present his written version of what transpired, did he not?

A I don't know.
6
7 of
You didn't receive copies from Ms. Gonzalez

the Board?
what he submitted to
8
9 not
A'
Ms. Gonzalez had a paper there,

wrote it or who it was
but it was
identified who
addressed to.
10
11
I'm assuming maybe Dr.

that for sure.
Shaffer wrote it, but I don't know
12 13
14
15
Well,
you're familiar with how the process aren't
works when a complaint is filed against 'the vet,

you?
A Yes, I am.
16 17 18 19
You understand that the vet gets an
opportunity -A Q Please lower your voice. Certainly. You understand that the vet has
20
an opportunity to provide a written response to the
21
22
23
24
complaint and then Ms. Gonzalez has another response

opportunity after he responds?
you?
A I do.
You understand that, don't
25
And you presented a multi-page statement of
0000083
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DV*
118
1
2
3
support for Ms. Gonzalez regarding her complaint against

Dr. Shaffer,
A
didn't you?
Yes, I did.
And after the completion of the investigation
5
6
by the board, what was their finding?

A No wrongdoing.
Please read --
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000090
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers, DiiM
143
w
1
You currently own and operate -- is it
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital?

A I do.
And how long have you owned and operated
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital.

A Roughly, 19 years.
Q
A
Are you the sole owner of that hospital?

Yes, I am.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0000091
Deposition of Robert "Bob" Rogers.^VM i^T

1 I, ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS, DVM, have read the
153
2
3
foregoing deposition and hereby affix my signature that

same is true and correct, except as noted above.
ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS,
DVM
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF
9
10
Before me,
personally appeared ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS,
, on this day
DVM, known to me
11 12
(or proved to me under oath or through (description of identity card) to be the person whose name
13
14 15
16
is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged

to me that they executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.
17
Given under my hand and seal of office this
18
19
day of ^_____
, 2012.
20
21
22
23 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
24
THE
STATE OF
25
0 OOOUb ^
ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS. DVM
154
CAUSE NO.
2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Plaintiff(s)
VS.
AT LAW NUMBER FIVE
(5)
ASSOCIATES,
INC. NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendant(s)
REPORTER'S
CERTIFICATION
10
11
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS,

MARCH 22, 2012
DVM
12 13 14
15
I, MARCY A. WELLS,
Certified Shorthand Reporter in
and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the

following:
16 17
18
That the witness, ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS,
DVM, was
duly sworn by the officer and that the transcript of the
oral deposition is a true record of the testimony given by

the witness;
19 20 21
That the deposition transcript was submitted on
r 2012 to the witness or to the attorney for

the witness for examination, signature, and to be returned
22 23 24 25
to DepoTexas-Corpus Christi by
, 2012;
That the amount of time used by each party at the
DepoTexas
888.893.3767
0000093
ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS, DVM
155
1
2 3
deposition is as follows:
MS. MS. VALERIE L. CANTU - 2:48
JENA GONZALEZ - 0:38
4 5
6
That pursuant to information given to the deposition officer at the time said testimony was taken,
the following includes all parties of record:
MS. VALERIE L. CANTU, attorney for Defendant

MS. JENA GONZALEZ, Plaintiff Pro Se
9
10
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties or attorneys

in the action in which this proceeding was taken, and
further that I am not financially or otherwise interested
in the outcome of the action.
11
12
13
14
Further certification requirements pursuant to Rule
15
16
203 of TRCP will be certified to after they have occurred.
17
18 19
Certified to by me this 26th day of March, 2012
20
21
MARCY A. WECLS, Texas CSR 277^ Expiration Date: 12/31/13

Firm Registration No. 644
\kjUJjLS
>
22
23
24 25
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 1450

Corpus Christi, Texas 78477 (361) 883-3400
DepoTexas
888.893.3767
00 00094
ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS, DVM
156
1
2
FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 203 TRCP
The original deposition
was
was not
returned to the deposition officer on
4
5 6 7 8 9
If returned, the original deposition was delivered
to VALERIE L. CANTU, custodial attorney;

That $_ . is the deposition officer's
charges to the Defendant for preparing the original

deposition transcript and any copies of exhibits;
10
11 12 13
That the deposition was delivered in accordance
with Rule 203.3 and that a copy of this certificate was

served on all parties herein and filed with the Clerk.
14 15 16 2012.
Certified to by me this
day of
17
18
19
20 21
MARCY A. WELLS,
Texas CSR 2777
Expiration Date: 12/31/13

22 23 24
25
Firm Registration No. 644
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 1450

(361) 883-3400
DepoTexas
888.893.3767
0000095
Page 1 of 3
)r. Bob Rogers
:rom: Sent:
"o:
Dr. Bob Rogers [drbob@critterfixer.com] Friday, July 15, 2011 11:30 AM

'Jena Gonzalez' '
subject: RE: Advice from my attorney
prefer not to get paid. Atevery trial the defendant's attorney has asked me how much I am making offof lis. My credibility goes way up when Ican say I have never been paid. Dr Bob
rom: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@yahoo.com]
ent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:10 AM o: Dr. Bob Rogers ubject: Re: Advice from my attorney
[ere is a spreadsheetof my expenses I am asking to recover. Should I add an amount for your
avel and testimony?
- On Fri, 7/15/11, Dr. Bob Rogers <drbob@jcritterfixer.com> wrote: rom: Dr. Bob Rogers <drbob@critterfixer.com> ubject: Advice from my attorney b: '"Jena Gonzalez'" <gil4584@yahoo.com>
)ate: Friday, July 15, 2011, 2:50 AM
he pros and cons of a jury trial vs. a Judge
. With a jury 12 people must understand technical things like 'accines and immunity, a Judge probably will. You can try to pick a nurse or
cience teacher.
2.The Judge may or may not like cats. You can be sure to select at least 7
eople who must like cats.
The Judge may or may not be from Texas A&M. You can pick Texas A&M
raduates and emphasize that
Texas A&M says this and that.
. Most people trust their Vets and will not expect them to do anything wrong, a
udge would be more impartial.
. Some people will resent having you take up their time /hen you don't have an attorney. The Judge won't because that is what small
faims court is all about.
am not an attorney, so I cannot give you any legal advice, however if you could nd out the Judge has a cat I would pick a Judge.
: he requests a jury that is fine.
0000096
5/20/2012
Page 2 of
1y friend and attorney, Mike MoriaJ^ says the elements of every malpractice tljml
ase are;
A. Common sense
B. The preponderance of the evidence C. Adherence to the Community Standard of care
lis defenses will likely be;
. He gave the vaccine in the other leg.

. There is no proof that vaccines cause cancer.
. The risk of cancer is outweighed by the need for vaccines.
. He adhered to the community standard of care. (100% of the Vets in Corpus

se adjuvanted vaccines, and annual vaccinations.)
low to present your case;
i. Keep it on very simple terms, like you are explaining to first graders without
eing condescending.
!. Explain that it is just common sense;
1. He says he gave the vaccine in the other leg. You saw him give it in
the leg where the tumor developed.
2. However, the tumor was right in the spot where a vaccine would have been given by any Vet. The tumor was not in the toe or the ear; it is
common sense that he gave the vaccine where the tumor was.
He did not write it in the medical record where the vaccine was given, therefore it is common since that he could not possibly remember
where he gave it or he could have gotten the vaccines reversed.
3. The cat did not need the shots. This is just common since that an
indoor cat would not be exposed to feline leukemia, rabies or distemper. The risk of getting disease is not as great as the risk of getting cancer.
Texas A&M, the AAFP do not give annual shots.
4. Ifthere is a risk of cancer, and it can be prevented by removing the lump early, Then you warn your client to look for a lump and remove it early. Common sense. Keep saying it is just common sense.
. Community Standard of care
does not matter what the other Vets in Corpus do, he Texas State Veterinary Board told him and all Vets; 1. To follow the guidelines of Texas A&M, the AVMA, and the
Association of Feline Practitioners,

1/90/9012
0000097
Page 3 of
2. To obtain informed consent. c^ms
>. Failure to obtain informed consent is in itself evidence of professional

egligence
'repare your closing arguments and have them in writing, taking less than 3 linutes, but be prepared to modify them as the trial goes on. Ve are going to beat this guy and help a lot of cats and cat lovers.
)r Bob
lo virus found in this message.

-hecked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390/Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date: 07/14/11
0000098
Page 1 of 2
Dr, Bob Rogers

From:
Sent:
To:
Dr. Bob Rogers [drbob@critterfixer.com]

Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:14 PM
'Jena Gonzalez'
Subject: RE: Veterinary State Board Complaint The State Board has a back iog of 202 cases. They had three investigators quit or retire so they are training three new ones. They only procecessed 8 esses in
July, 22 in August and 28 in September. It will obviously take 10 months or so to catch up. The next meeting is
February. I am still trying to find you an attorney. My non profit Critter Advocacy can put up S3 -5 thousand
towards an attorney. Sincerely, DrBob
From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 9:24 PM
To: Dr. Bob Rogers
Subject: Re: Veterinary State Board Complaint
Hi, it was great! The defendant's attorney said "we think Kitty Kat Gonzalez is still alive and are currently looking for her" 1replied, Sir, that is not funny! and he said will neither is a frivolous lawsuit! The judge said let's play nice and see my court clerk to get a trial date set. It took about three
minutes and I have a jurytrial scheduled for May 14, 2012. So let's see what they try to do to me before then. Of course the stateboard ruling before the trial could make or break my case. Any word on that?
From; Dr. Bob Rogers <drbob@critterfixer.com> To: 'Jena Gonzalez' <gi!4584@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31,2011 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Veterinary State Board Complaint
Jenna, How did the hearing go on Friday? Dr Bob From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:17 PM To: Dr. Bob Rogers
Subject: Re: Veterinary State Board Complaint
Hey, how have you been? I was just thinking about you the other day. Charles Adkins retired so I
figured it would delay it with a new investigator. I wish they would hurry up 10 months already. I have
been so busy researching information for my lawsuit, if s confusingbut I am determined to see it
through. I met with Dr. Allred from Oso Creek Animal Hospital, she is the vet who put Kitty Kat to sleep, and she will testify as a Nueces Count}' vet. Of course if you are still willing I want you to testify too. I will also be asking Dr. Piattfrom Baldwin and Crosstown Animal Hospital to testify. I filed my appeal on 9.2.31 and on Friday I received a notice of hearing to dismiss. The hearing is on 10.28.11 but I am not sure what grounds they have for dismissing my case other than they don't like Pro SePlaintiffs. Anyway yesterday I submitted to the court; Motion to retain case on the docket, Jury request, and a
notice to meet and confer with the defendants attorney to prepare ajointmeeting report. So hopefully that will move things along and get a trial date set. If you know anything else I should be doing let me
know. Talk to you soon...Jena
PS If the Board would justfind negligence itsure would help mycase, the Board knows I am appealing the small claims and I also sentthem Dr. Shaffers lame testimony from the small claims hearing. After the October Board meeting when will the next one be? Howlong can they drag this out????
0000099
3/19/2012
Paae 1 of 1
Dr. Bob Rogers

From: Sent:
To:
Dr. Bob Rogers [drbob@critteriixer.corn] Monday, February 06, 2012 11:49 AM

'Jena Gonzalez'
Subject: RE: negligent misrepresentation
3enna,
I am sorry but also not surprised. This is a great miscarriage of justice. It will make me work harder to win. I do no think it will hurt your case much as a jury will not be surprised either. I can testify as to my experiences at the State Board and the Sunset Commission. I will be suing the
State Board over this.
Today I spoke with Amy Danna, a Houston Attorney with the Anima! Law Society. Her cat died of a VAS. Although she could not take your case, She will contact 230 Animal Law Attorneys in Texas to see if one will take your case and I will provide financial assistance, I sent her my entrie testimony
and a cover e mail, I wiii forward to you the email I sent her. I am going to call more attorneys today.
Or Bob
From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:50 PM To: Dr. Bob Rogers
Subject: Re: negligent misrepresentation
Well I received the answers from the vet board today and no wrongdoing was found. I am not surprised but afraid it might hurt my case. What will my defense be other than the vet board almost always rules in favor of the vet? Can I get some statistics on how many cases are files against vets and how many cases are ruled in favor of the complaintanl? Can I appeal their decision? Any suggestions?
From: Dr. Bob Rogers <drbob@critterfixer.com> To: 'Jena Gonzalez' <gil4584@yahoo.com> Cc: 'Jena Gonzalez' <gil4584@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:02 PM Subject: negligent misrepresentation
Jenna, This was supplied to me by my attorney, Mike Moriarty.
Plaintiff will show that Defendants are liable for negligent misrepresentation. Defendants made material representations to Plaintiff in the course of Defendants' business in a transaction in which Defendants had an interest; Defendants supplied false information for the guidance of Plaintiff and others. Defendants did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining the information or in communication of informed consent to Plaintiff; Plaintiff justifiably relied on the representations
made by Defendants; and Defendants' negligent misrepresentations proximately caused Plaintiff's

injuries.
No vims found in this message. Checked by AVG - wvyw.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1416/Virus Database: 2112/4790 - Release Date: 02/05/12
0000100
3/10/9019
Page 1 of 3
Dr. Bob Rogers

From:
Sent:
To:

Monday, February 13, 2012 11:37 AM
'Jena Gonzalez'
Subject: RE: Fund raising op
You need to contact this lady.
There may not be any excess as the new attorney may be more expensive. If you don't mind
how about any excess money going to sue the Texas State Board?
Dr Bob
From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:25 AM To: Dr. Bob Rogers Subject: Re: Fund raising op
WOWawesome...Let's get it going. Iwant to be sure we are very transparent with all the donations that we
receive. Any donations that are collected in excess of attorney fees need to be designated to the VAS support
group or VAS research.
From: Dr. Bob Rogers <drbob@critterfixer.corn>

To: 'Jena Gonzalez' <gil4584@yahoo.com> Cc: 'Jena Gonzalez1 <gil4584yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:47 AM Subject: Fund raising op
From: Dana Scott [mailto:dana@dogsnaturallymagazine.com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:46 AM To: 'patricia Jordan'; drbob@critterfixer.com
Subject: RE: Dr. Bob ROgers information on the advocacy for lawsuit against vaccines
Hi Dr. Rogers
Pat Jordan has forwarded this ernaii to me to see if we can be of help. I don't know if you have heard of our magazine, but our readers are -vaccine evangelists' and 'would be very supportive of this case.
If we have the ability to put a story and face to this, I think we can help these people to raise the money. We can help by doing an online article and piea for support and getting It out to people who are already very
passionate about vaccine dangers. We get about 80,000 visitors to our site each month, so we can get this 'out
into e very good demographic. I would also announce this in our newsletter which reaches another few thousand and on our Facebook sr>.ti Twitter pages which will also reach another several thousand.
The second thing I see happening is approaching seme of our sponsors and getting them to provide coupons or
discounts for donations, We will do the same.
If this is of interest to you, please let me know and we will see if we cant get something roiling. In a nutshell,
we get a Sot of traffic and we are offering this to you as support.
Best regards.
Dana Scott
Dogs Naturally Magazine
0000101
p/io/orno
Page 2 of 3
www.dogsnsLurailymsg3zine.com
877 665-1290 ext. 8
For dofcs without boundaries
From: drbob@critterfixer.com
To: patriciamonahanjordan@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Please help lawsuit against unsafe and unnecessary vaccines that has caused cancer in pet now esse
going to court if attorney can be secured Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:06:08 -0600
Thanks for the quick reply. There is an Anima! Law group helping and the attorney's own cat died of VAS. Donations are tax deductable and can be made to the NPO C.A.R.E.S. ,(Critter
Advocacy Responsibility Ethics Science)( www.critteradvocacy.org ) at 5 703 Louetta Rd.
Spring, Texas 77379. Thanks for helping, Dr Bob
From: patricia Jordan [mailto:patriciamonahanjordan@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 3:13 PM To: Dr. Bob Rogers
Subject: RE: Please help lawsuit against unsafe and unecessary vaccines that hascaused cancer in pet now case
going to court if attorney can be secured
Dr. Bob,
I will help also ifyou need me to with the information I have collected over the past 5 years, pictures of the
sarcomas and even with testimony if you need. I would give an Ebook to anyone that donates money to this cause, MARK OF THE BEAST HIDDEN IN PLAIN
SIGHT.
I will forward this to the editor of a pet publication that I write for to see if she has any ideas.
You need to win this case, certainly the vaccines are not necessary and they are unsafe as well and are linked
with causing cancer.
I feel that this first Deceptive Practice in the postcard reminder for shots, it is also FRAUD, but later becomes criminal EXTORTION when the client has to pay for
vaccine induced disease. I will forward this information to some other groups to see ifthere is anyway, they can
think of to implement some fund raisers
for attorney fees. Perhaps there is an Animal Law group that is interested in helping with the case? Lewis and
Clark has an Animal Law group and I will also forward to them.
Sincerely,
Dr, Jordan
0000102
3/19/2012
Page 3 of 3
From: drbob@critternxer.com
To: patriciamonahanjordan@hotmaiI.com Subject: Please help

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:33:05 -0600
Dr Jordan,
I am an expert witness in a law suit involving a vaccine associated sarcoma, VAS. Jenna Gonzales of Corpus Christi is suing her Vet. She is suing for professional malpractice as
well as negligent misrepresentation.
Her Vet gave her cat an adjuvanted PLPRhCv at a two year interval and an adjuvanted FeLV vaccine to an adult cat. She is alleging the adjuvanted vaccine caused the VAS, that the vaccines were unnecessary and she would not have consented to their administration if given
informed consent.
She spent $8,000 to try to treat Kitty Kat with surgery and radiation and Kitty Kat died. She is
trying to recover medical costs plus sentimental value.
She has good attorney, however the legal fees are estimated at $10,000 and you cannot
recover legal fess in such a suit.
Please help us raise money for her legal fees. I am donating $5,000.1 am hoping you can approach your network of followers for contributions of perhaps $50 to $100. Anything will be
appreciated.
If we win the impact will be huge. I am hoping our malpractice insurance company will want to cut their losses from potential suits and advise Vets to quit using adjuvanted vaccine,
provide informed consent and quit giving unnecessary vaccines. We will also take this
judgment to the State Boards. Let me know what you think.
Dr Bob
No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424/Virus Database: 2112/4805 -Release Date: 02/12/12
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4807 - Release Date: 02/13/12
0000103
3/19/2012
Page 1 of 1
Dr. Bob Rogers

From:
Sent:
To:

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:42 PM
'Jena Gonzalez'
Subject: RE: Donations
For now they can mail donations to

CARES 5703 Louetta
Spring, Texas 77379
I will have something set up by Wed with my bank to do electronic & on line donations. I will be out of town until Tuesday. I will have my cell phone 281-356-5590 but no e mail
access.
Call if you need something. Dr Bob

From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:12 PM
To; Dr. Bob Rogers
Subject: Donations
Dr. Bob, 1have posted our piea for donations on the VAS support group, facebook pages, Chicken the Cat blog etc. The have been going to your website to look for a way to donate. Is that where you plan on putting the
information? Should I build a separate page?

Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4812 - Release Date: 02/15/12
0000104
3/19/2012
Page 1 of 1
Dr. Bob Rogers

From:
Sent:
To:

Thursday, February 16,2012 9:44 PM
'Jena Gonzalez'
Subject: RE: We have a LAWYER
I will get him the money Tuesday. What is his phone number? Dr Bob
From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gii4584@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:11 PM
To: Dr. Bob Rogers Subject: We have a LAWYER
Dr. Bob
Emmett Reyes will take our case. He needs a $2,500 retainer immediately so he can file our amended
petition, motion to compel, and respond to deposition request. His fee will be $100 hourly. He is not set up to take credit cards at this time. He banks at Frost Bank. Idont have an extra $2,500 in my bank account but may
be able to give him a check from my credit card. Are there any questions you would like me to ask him before I sign the contract? Call me if you want 361-425-9359

Version: 10.0.1424/Virus Database: 2112/4812 -Release Date: 02/15/12
0000105
3/19/2012
Paoe 1 of 1
Dr. Bob Rogers

From:
Sent:
To: Cc:

Monday, February 20, 2012 7:13 PM
'Jena Gonzalez' 'Jena Gonzalez'
Subject: Emmett Reyes
I will be going to the bank tomorrow to send the money. I still need Emmett Reyes' phone
number. Thanks Dr Bob
000010G
3/19/9012
TEXAS BOARD OF
VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS
February 1,2012
David G, Shaffer, DVM 4100 Santa Fe St.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411

RE: Case No. 11-174
David O. Shaffer. DVM Dear Dr. Shaffer:
This letter is official notification that the Board has completed its investigation of the complaint
submitted by Jena Gonzalez.
Two Board Members, who are both veterinarians, reviewed and evaluated this case. After this review of all available documentation and statements, the Board Members could not substantiate
any violation of the Veterinary Licensing Act or any of the Rules ofProfessional Conduct.
don't hesitate to contact me.
Wc are closing this case with the notation of "no violation". If you have any questions, please
Sincerely,
Karen Phillips
' T)ife^tori5fEnfoTcernentKP/kc
EXHIBIT
fCf PKIfWJR. WI1U03-T35S
3330UADAUJPE.suTni>io-Aij?nN.,nDCAS7inoiowa
fonâl*nnifailwnw.iu.:wi
.'
"" ' fl fl fl fl t ft 7
U U U U * **
Transcript of the Testimony of

Conversation between Alan Garett, DVM
and Robert (Bob) Rogers,

Date:
March 29, 2012
Case:
Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.
EXHIBIT
P
Kim Tindall and Associates, LLC.
FY
Phone:(210) 697-3400 Fax:(210) 697-3408

Email:ktindall@ktanda.com
Internet: www.KimTindall.com
0000108
Conversation between Alan Garet^^H and Robert (Bob) Rogers,
March 29,
2012
Page 1
CAUSE
NO.
2011-CV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
) IN THE COUNTY COURT

)
vs.
) NUECES COUNTY,
) ) AT LAW NO.
TEXAS
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
TRANSCRIPTION OF AUDIO RECORDING
CONVERSATION BETWEEN
ALAN GARETT,
DVM AND ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS,

JANUARY 14, 2012
DVM
Kim Tindall & Associates, Inc. 645 Lockhill-Selma, Suite 200
San Antonio,
Texas 78216
Phone
(210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
Electronically signed by TammyPozzi (001-241-268-3188)
e4a27b39-79d8-4be 5-98ft
WOTS 9
Conversation between Alan Garet
and Robert
[Bob]
Rogers,
March 29,
2012
Page 2
02
DR.
GARETT:
This
is
Dr.
Alan Garrett.
I'm about to play back for you the conversation that I
had with Bob Rogers taken on January 14th of this year,

2012,
55:19
in Orlando,
Florida,
at 9:48 a.m.
Please listen,
(unintelligible).
DR. GARETT: DR. ROGERS:
You said something earlier I really want to talk to you
Let's get together for lunch or something.

:56:13 10
11 12
(unintelligible) lunch with me if they can

(unintelligible).
13
14
:58:16
15
16 17
18 19 :58:43 20
21
22 23 24
DR. GARETT:
cat?
handle that with every
59:16
25
Kim Tindall & Associates,
Inc. 645 Lockhill-Selma, Suite 200
San Antonio,
Texas 78216
Phone
(210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
Electronically signed by Tammy Pozzi(001-241-268-3188)
e4a27b39-79d8-4be5-98fb-c2fbfd; >8fb-c2fbfdac9B8b
ooo 6no
Conversation between Alan Garettl^^V and Robert (Bob) Rogers,
M2rch 29,
2012
Page 8
:12
11:31
11:56
10
11 12
13
14
12:20
15 16
17 18
19 12:33 20
21 22 23 24
choice, okay?
court,
Under
if -- if
we're going back to
okay, she's going to have to get a lawyer because

she got
12:42
25
lack of a lawyer
Inc. 645 Lockhill-Selma,
Suite 200
San Antonio,
Texas 78216
Phone
(210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
Electronically signed by Tammy Pozzi (001-241-268-3188)
e4a27b39-79d8-4be5-98fb-c2fbfdac988b
0000111
Conversation between Alan Garetl
and Robert (Bob) Rogers,
March 29,
2012
Page 9
.45
DR.
GARRETT:
DR.
ROGERS:
blindsided.
She was
like
a deer in the headlights.
14:02
:14:16
10
11 12
13
14
DR.
GARRETT:
Who do you blame?
The
:14:40
15
16 17 18 19
veterinarian or -- or the
DR. ROGERS:
don't blame the vet.
or the industry?
I blame the industry. I
DR. GARETT:
Sure.
Yeah,
I agree.
15:20
20
21 22
23
24
15:48
25
San Antonio,
Texas 78216
Phone
(210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
0000112
Conversation between Alan Garet
WA and Robert (Bob)
Rogers,
March 29,
2012
Page 16
:27
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BEXAR
I, Tammy Pozzi,
:22:41
Certified Shorthand Reporter,
certify that the foregoing is a correct transcription,

to the best of my hearing and ability, from the audio
recording of the proceeding in the above-entitled

matter.
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,

22:41 10
11 12 13 14
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the

action in which this hearing was taken, and further that
I am not financially or otherwise interested in the

outcome of the action.
I further certify that the transcription fee of
22:41
15
16 17
was paid/will be paid in full by
Certified to by me on this
Ô
day of
18
19
22:41
20
21
J&M/U^TAMMY POZZI,
Texas CSR 561
22
Expiration: 12/31/12 Kim Tindall & Associates,

Firm No. 631
LLC
23
24
25
San Antonio,
Texas 78216
Phone
(210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
e4a27b39-79d8-4be5-9r",
0000113
Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

Jena Gonzalez
In the County Court
Plaintiff At Law No. 5
v.
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
CO
-<
Nueces County, Te^vs

rn CD
i--4
CD
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL
DEFENDANT'S NO-EVIDENCE & TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
and
DEFENDANT'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ITS

COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Defendant") files this Motion to Seal Defendant's No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of
All of Plaintiffs Claims and Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of its
Counterclaim, and in support of same, respectfully shows the Court as follows:
I.
The allegations against Defendant in this lawsuit involve personal allegations against tiê
reputation and integrity of Defendant, its veterinarian employees, and its veterinary practice. The evidence attached to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment includes some evidence and statements that may be private in nature but, nonetheless, constitutes relevant and necessary evidence in support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. As such, in an abundance of
100-506 Page ]
0000114
caution and to protect the privacy of the parties and experts in this suit, Defendant requests that
the Court keep Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment under seal.
PRAYER
In light of the foregoing, Defendant requests that the Court grant this Motion to Seal be set for hearing and that, upon completion of the hearing, the Court GRANT this Motion in its entirety and ORDER that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be sealed and not available to the public in the Clerk's records. Defendant prays for all such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Defendant may show itself to be justly entitled.
K //?*"-? sir>^
It
719 S. Shoreline, Ste. 500 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361)882-1612
Telecopier: (361)882.3015
and
100-506
Page 2
0000115
y Al/ft ^
Keith B. O'Connell
StateBarNo. 15179700
U ?>u^$ss^~
'8

INC.
has, this J day of April, 2012, been delivered via CMRRR, to:

3717 Aransas
Valerie L. Cantu
#- AVH( l^fa* -/i"

I
100-506
Page 3
0000116
Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

v.
In the County Court
At Law No. 5

Associates, Inc. Defendant
defendant's first amended original answer t o plaintiff's

original petition & c o u n t e r c l a i m
t o the honorable judge of said court:

this First Amended Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original Petition & Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court the following:
FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER I. GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92. Defendant generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof at the trial of
this cause.
II.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
A.
Defendant specifically and affirmatively denies that they and their owners^
t r-o t
employees were negligent in their veterinary medical treatment and care of Plainfftff sât
Defendant specifically and affirmatively denies that they and their owners and employs ffledfeô'
to exercise that degree of care that a veterinarian ot ordinary prudence possessing and eêrcismg 1{
pi
ro
a reasonable degree of skill and learning in small animal medicine would use under thefâm^r "*
100-506 Pase I
0000117
similar circumstances in and around Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, and similar
surrounding communities. Defendant further specifically and affirmatively denies that any acts
and/or omissions on Defendant and its owners and employees were a proximate cause of the
injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
B.
Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendant alleges that the injuries in
question and damages, if any, were caused by an act of God.
C.
Pleading further and in the alternative, Defendant alleges that the injuries alleged
by Plaintiff were caused by new and independent, unforeseeable, superseding and/or intervening
causes unrelated to any conduct of this Defendant and its owners and employees.
ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM
I.
This case is governed by a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan pursuant to Rule 190.3 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
Venue is proper in Nueces County, Texas, pursuant to section 15.062(a) of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
III.
All parties have entered an appearance in this suit. Plaintiff is being served with this
Counterclaim in accordance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
IV.
Pursuant to Rule 13 and 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
hereby asserts a counterclaim against Plaintiff for continued prosecution of her claims against
Defendant, since Plaintiffs claims are groundless and brought in bad faith or for the purpose of
100-506
Page 2
0000118
harassment. Specifically, Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claims against Defendant even
though neither she nor her retained testifying expert have knowledge of the veterinary standard
of care applicable to and practiced by small animal veterinarians of ordinary skill and care
practicing in the Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas under the same or substantially similar circumstances. Furthermore, Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claims against Defendant even though the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the "TSBVME"), via investigation of Plaintiffs allegations against Dr. Shaffer and Defendant by two Texas
veterinarians who also are TSBVME Board Members has found no violations by Dr. Shaffer and
Defendant of the applicable veterinary standard of care. Furthermore, Plaintiff continues to
prosecute her claims against Defendant even though her own retained testifying expert has admitted he does not fault Dr. Shaffer or Defendant for any alleged malpractice or other
wrongdoing.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing on all of her affirmative claims asserted against Defendant and that Defendant prevail on its
Counterclaim asserted against Plaintiff and have judgment granted for Defendant which dismisses Plaintiffs suit with prejudice and which awards Defendant all attorneys' fees and
court costs incurred herein, as well as pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, and all
such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Defendant may show itself to be justly
entitled.
100-506
Page 3
0000119
By:
719 S. Shoreline, Ste. 500 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361)882-1612 Telecopier: (361)882.3015

and
By:.
Keith B. O'Connell

Valerie L. Cantu

INC.
:;v
100-506
Page 4
0000120
has, this -Jj
day of April, 2012, been delivered via hand delivery, to:

3717 Aransas
Valerie L. Cantu
, ,,.
-,,
100-506
Page 5
0000121
O'CONNELU & A V ERY

ATTORNEYS AND
LLP
MO
COUNSELORS
13750 SAN
PEDRO.
SUITE
Sam Antonio. Texas 7S2.3H

Telephone (2IOI 62^-0009
Email: valerjec@ocqnbev4.com
Facsimile I2IO) 924-Q4?9
April 5,2012 Via Certified Mail/RRR 7011 2970 0000 0243 6639
Nueces County Clerk 901 Leopard Street, Room 201 Corpus Christi. Texas 78401
Re:
Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates. Inc., in the County Court at Law No! 5, Nueces County, Texas
Dear Ms. Barrera:
Enclosed for filing with the Court are the following:
Defendant South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.'s First Amended Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original Petition & Counterclaim. (Also included is our firm's check in the amount of $35.00 for the Counterclaim filing fee).
Also enclosed are copies of each of the foregoing documents. We ask that you please file-stamp each of the copies with the date and time of filing of same and return the copies us via the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.
By copy of this letter and its enclosures, Plaintiff is being served same via the means
indicated below.
We appreciate your assistance with this matter.
Very truly yours,
Valerie L, Cantu
cc: (Via Hand Delivery
tW /*rW.TJ7rfW
//
0000122
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
IN THE COUNTY COURT
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
JENA GONZALEZ'S ANSWER TO SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES. INC. COUNTERCLAIM TO

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
Pro Se
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jena
Gonzalez
("Plaintiff") files
this
answer to
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. {"Defendant") Counterclaims to

Plaintiffs Original Petition.
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant generally

denies all of the claims alleged by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff and respectfully prays that the Court require Defendants to prove their Counterclaim as alleged by a preponderance of the evidence or such higher standard as may be applicable. Plaintiff requests that Defendants take nothing on each and every
claim in their Counterclaim.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant asks the court to dismiss this sTTft orên
judgment that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff takes nothing, assess costs against DefenSarit/G^n
Plaintiff, and award all other relief to which Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant is entitled.
</>
<r>
~o
-c
Pg-1
TO
m
000123
By: ^-rffi/UJ^ ^
3717 Aransas St.
/Jeha Gonzalez, Pro Se J&aSntiff

attorney on this 16th day of April 2012, by certified mail, return receipt requested 7010 1870 0000 7697
8023 to:
Attorney for: Attorney's name:
0'Connell& Avery LLP

Valerie L Cantu
Attorney's address:

Pg-2
0000124
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COUNTY COURT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
To: Defendant, South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc., by and through his attorney of record,
Valerie L. Cantu, O'Connell & Avery LLP, 13750 San Pedro, Suite 110, San Antonio, Texas 78232.
Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, serves this objection to the authenticity of documents produced by Defendant in discovery.
A. INTRODUCTION
1.
Defendant, in response to Plaintiff's request for production of documents, produced the
following documents:
Copy of letter dated February 1, 2012, of Ms. Karen Phillips, Director of
Enforcement of the Texas State Board Veterinary Medical Examiners, to Dr. David G. Shaffer and Transcript of a recorded conversation between Alan Garett, DVM and Robert (Bob) Rogers, DVM.
2.
Plaintiff objects to the authenticity of these documents.
3.
On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff learned that Defendant intended to use documents pcodufieti
Defendant against Plaintiff at Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for fctiay.
2012. co
r'
Pg-1
B. ARGUMENTS
4.
A party's production of documents in response to written discovery authenticates the
documents for use against that party, unless the producing party objects to their use within ten days
after the producing party has actual notice that the documents will be used. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.7.
5.
This motion is filed within 10 days of the date that Plaintiff learned that Defendant intended to
use documents produced by Defendant against Plaintiff at Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
hearing scheduled for May 1, 2012.
6.
Plaintiff objects to the authenticity of documents produced on the following grounds: Copyof
letter dated February 1, 2012, of Ms. Karen Phillips, Director of Enforcement of the Texas State Board Veterinary Medical Examiners, to Dr. David G. Shaffer: A copy of the February 1, 2012, letter of Ms.
Karen Phillips, Director of Enforcement of the TSBVME, to Dr. David G. Shaffer marked as Exhibit C was
filed as an attachment to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Motion relies on evidence that the court cannot consider because it is "Hearsay". According to Texas Rules of Evidence, Article VIM, Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Furthermore, Defendant's Motion relies on evidence that the court cannot consider because it is not properly authenticated. Blanche v. First Nationwide Mortg. Corp., 14 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, no pet.); see Banowsky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex. App.Amarillo 1994, no writ).
Although Defendant filed the evidence attached to the Motion, an affidavit was not filed that verified
the authenticity of the evidence. Thus, the evidence is not competent summary judgment evidence. Furthermore, Plaintiff has submitted an appeal to the TSBVME and it was accepted by Ms. Karen Phillips
on April 2, 2012. *
Pg-2
0000126
Transcript of a tape recorded conversation between Alan Garett, DVM and Robert (Bob) Rogers, DVM:
Defendant's Motion relies on evidence that the court cannot consider because it was obtained as a
violation of state law. On January 14, 2012, Plaintiff's retained testifying expert, Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers, and Defendant's retained testifying expert. Dr. Alan Garett, both attended a professional
conference in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Alan Garett used his cell phone to record a conversation with Dr.
Robert "Bob" Rogers without either his knowledge or consent. Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party
consent" law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication"
in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. Whoever violates subsection (1) isguilty of a
felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41. See
Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03.
1.
193.7.
Plaintiff has a good-faith factual and legal basis for making these objections. Tex. R. Civ. P.
3717 Aransas St.
Telephone: (361) 425-9359
Pg-3
0000127
attorney on this 16th day of April 2012, by certified mail, return receipt 7010 1870 0000 7697 8023
requested to:
Attorney for:
Attorney's name:
South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. O'Connell & Avery LLP

Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney's address:
$W4
onzalez, Pro Se Piainw
pg.4
0000128
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
IN THE COUNTY COURT
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
PRO SE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JENA GONZALEZ'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Pro Se Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jena Gonzalez asks the court to impose appropriate

sanctions against Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard, Munoz, & Gonzalez, LLP and Valerie L. Cantu of O'Connell &. Avery, LLP for filing a groundless pleading in violation of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13.
A. INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant is Jena Gonzalez; Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff is South Texas
Veterinary Associates, Inc.
2.
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant sued Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff for veterinary malpractice,
Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior.
3.
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys are Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard, Munoz, &Gonzalez,
LLP and Valerie L. Cantu, of O'Connell & Avery, LLP.
B. FACTS
4.
On April 5, 2012, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys filed Defendant's FirsEAmendga~~S<

zn "
Answer To Plaintiffs Original Petition & Counterclaim.
Pg-1
0000129
5.
This case is governed by a level 1 Discovery Control Plan pursuant to Rule 190.2 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Nueces County, Texas, is the proper venue pursuant to section 15.062(a) of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
6.
Plaintiffattaches affidavits to this motion to establish facts not apparent from the record.
GROUNDLESS PLEADING UNDER RULE 13
7.
Rule 13 authorizes the imposition of sanctions against an attorney, a represented party, or
both, who filed a pleading that is either: (1) groundless and brought in bad faith; or (2) groundless and
brought to harass.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 13; see also Rudisell v. Paquette, 89 S.W.3d 233, 236 (Tex. App.-
Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). The rule defines "groundless" as having "no basis in law or fact and not
warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." Tex. R.
Civ. P. 13. Sanctions may only be imposed for good cause under Rule 13, the particulars of which must
be stated in the order. TEX. R. CIV. P. 13; Rudisell, 89 S.W.3d at 237.8.
8.
The standard for reviewing whether a pleading is groundless is objective: Did the party and
attorneys make a reasonable inquiry into the legal and factual basis of the claim? The reasonableness of
the inquiry isjudged by the facts available and the circumstances present at the time the party filed the
pleading. Tarrant Cty. v. Chancey, 942 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Tex. App.FortWorth 1997, no writ).
9. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys know that the veterinary standard of care is not limited
to the Corpus Christi, Nueces County, standard of care. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys know the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the "TSBVME") letter is inadmissible hearsay
evidence. Furthermore, they are aware that the "TSBVME" decision is currently being appealed.
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys know that the statement by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's
retained testifying expert, Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers, "that he does not fault Dr. Shaffer or Defendant for
Pg- 2
0000130
any alleged malpractice" was taken outof context but more importantly was obtained by illegally taping
the conversation in Florida. Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Florida makes it a
crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. Whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082. s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41. See Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. It is
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's belief that the Counterclaim is groundless and brought in bad faith for the
purpose to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. Bad faith can also be found where
"claims advanced are meritless, that counsel knew or should have known this, and that the motive
for filing the suit was for an improper purpose such as harassment." Smith v. Fed'n of Teachers
Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1375 {6* Cir. 1987). Therefore, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's attorneys are
subject to sanctions.
D. FRIVOLOUS PLEADING UNDER TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 10.001
10. The court can impose sanctions on the attorney orthe party represented by the attorney who
signed a pleading, motion, or other paper in violation of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
10.001. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 10.004(a).
11. A pleading is frivolous when presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem. Code 10.001(1).
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's pleading is frivolous because the pleading is intended to harass or cause
unnecessary delay or expense.
12.
Bad faith does not exist when a party merely exercises bad judgment or is negligent; rather
bad faith is the conscious doing ofa wrong for dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purposes. Elkins v.
Stotts-Brown, 103 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). To "harass" means to annoy,
alarm, and verbally abuse another person. Id.
Pg-3
0000131
13.
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys Robert C. Hilliard and Valerie L Cantu filed the
groundless Counterclaim pleading in bad faith, purpose of harassment, and to cause unnecessary
expense. Therefore, Robert C. Hilliard and Valerie L. Cantu are subject to sanctions. See GTE, 856
S.W.2d at 731. Specifically, on November 3, 2011, Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez sent an email to Valerie Cantu
inquiring about "the interest that Mr. Bob Hilliard has in this case. He is not a partyto this suit nor is he listed as counsel for the defendant. Unless a joinder of additional parties is filed I request that he no longer participate as counsel for the defendant". Ms. Cantu, in an email dated November 4, 2011, replied, "Regarding your inquiry as to Mr. Hilliard, so that we are all on the same page, I have included
Mr. Hilliard as a cc: to this e-mail. You may recall that Mr. Hilliard was co-counsel for our client at the
small claims trial, as well as personal counsel for both South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. and Dr.
Darrel Ferris. He continues to be co-counsel and personal counsel for our client in this county court
matter. Attached is a copy of the Notice of Appearance of Counsel of Defendant, which we filed with
the court today (By certified mail, return receipt requested, you shall receive a separate copy of the
Notice as a cc: to our November 4, 2011 letter to the Nueces County Court Clerk)". Mr. Hilliard's
response on November 3, 2011, to the email was, "Please file a Notice of Additional Counsel and have it
reflect that I represent Dr. Ferris. Please amend our answer to allege this is a frivolous lawsuit brought
solely for the purpose of harassment and be sure to calculate all attorney fees and other costs so, at the appropriate time, we can ask that the Gonzalez plaintiff be responsible for payment of same". Mr.
Hilliard represented South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. in Small Claims hearing conducted on July
22, 2011, in Precinct 2-1, Justice Court, Justice of the Peace Janice Stoner, Nueces County, Texas. Mr.
Hilliard again represented South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. at a Dismissal For Want Of
Prosecution hearing conducted on October 28, 2011, in the County Court At Law #5 with the Honorable
Judge Brent Chesney presiding. Mr. Hilliard represented the Defendant on both occasions without being
pg.4
0000132
a designated attorney of record or notifying Plaintiff as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8
and Rule 21a. On November 3, 2011, Mr. Hilliard instructed Ms. Cantu via email to amend the
Defendant's original answer to include "this is a frivolous lawsuit brought solely for the purpose of
harassment". Five months passed before and amended answer was filed in order to increase their
attorney fees in this case which is being paid by the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs malpractice
insurance. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has also spent money on discovery fees in the last five months.
If Mr. Hilliard and Ms. Cantu truly felt this was a frivolous lawsuit in November 2011, an amended
answer should have been filed at that time. During the time period October 2011 - April 13, 2012,
Counsel has billed $20,403.71 for legal fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses.
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys are subject to sanctions.
Therefore,
F. SANCTIONS
14. Plaintiff asks the court to impose the following sanctions on Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard,
Munoz, & Gonzalez, LLP and Valerie L. Cantu, of O'Connell &Avery, LLP.
a.
An order charging all or any portion of the expense of discovery or taxable court cost or
both against the disobedient party or the attorney(s) advising him; Tex. R. Civ. P.
215.2(b)(2).
Specifically, paying the entire deposition fee charged to Plaintiff by
DepoTexas for depositions of Dr. Ferris, Dr. Shaffer, and Dr. Garett. Plaintiff iswaiting on
final invoice.
b.
An order striking all or part of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs pleadings. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2(b)(5). Specifically striking all of Defendant's First Amended Original Answer to
Plaintiffs Original Petition & Counterclaim.
Pg-5
0000133
c.
A penalty to be paid into the court.
Tex. Civ. Prac. 8t Rem. Code 10.004(c)(2).
Specifically a penalty to be decided bythe Honorable Judge Brent Chesney.
G. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES
15. When the party against whom sanctions are sought cannot show due diligence, a court may award the party seeking sanctions all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-pocket expenses
incurred or caused by the litigation. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 10.002(c). Defendant/CounterPlaintiffs attorneys did not exercise due diligence, specifically by waiting, as planned, five months to file a frivolous countersuit pleading in order to cause unnecessary expense of billed fees in the amount of
$20,403.71. Because Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys did not show diligence, the court should
award Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-pocket expenses
caused by this litigation.
H. HEARING
i
16. The court should set this motion for a hearing, give Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs attorneys the opportunity to meet its burden of proof, and give Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant the opportunity to
present evidence in response.
I. CONCLUSION
17. Pro Se Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's motion to impose sanctions on Defendant/CounterPlaintiffs attorneys Mr. Robert C. Hilliard and Valerie L. Cantu for filing Defendant's First Amended
Original Answer To Plaintiffs Original Petition &Counterclaim in bad faith, purpose of harassment, and
to cause unnecessary expense.
J. PRAYER
Pg-6
0000134
18. For these reasons, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant asks the court to dismiss this suit or render
judgment that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff take nothing, assess costs against Defendant/CounterPlaintiff, and award all other relief to which Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant is entitled.
By:
nzalez, Pro Se Plaintiff)

3717 Aransas St.
Telephone: (361) 425-9359
attorney on this 18th day of April 2012, by certified mail, return receiptrequested 70101870 0000 7697
8047 to:
Attorney for:
Attorney's name:
O'Connell &. Avery LLP

Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney's address:
:, Pro Se PlaintiltJ
/) 7>
Pg-7
0000135
RE: Jena Gonzalez vs. South T"~*s Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our File-^0. 100-506 'ijfiî
Page 1of3
RE: Jena Gonzalez vs. South Texas Veterinary Associates,

Inc.; Our File No. 100-506
From:
To:
Jena Gonzalez <gil4584@peoplepc.com>

Valerie Cantu
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
RE: Jena Gonzalez vs. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our File No. 100-506
Nov 7, 2011 9:49 AM
Signed Final Agreed Docket.pdf
Good Morning Ms. Cantu,
I have attached and signed the Final Agreed Docket Control Order. Please file the Order with the court.
I do recall Mr. Hilliard being lead counsel for the defendant in the small claims trial and at the dismissal
hearing but it was never documented norbrought to my attention that he was representing South Texas Veterinary Associates and Dr. Darrel Ferris untilI questioned why he was making a regular appearance. I am in
receipt of the Notice Of Appearance Of Counsel For Defendant.
Regarding telephone consultations, I amnot available to discuss matters viatelephone during the hours of8:oo
a.m. - 4:30 p.m. unlessthe conferance has been scheduledin advance. You are always welcome to leave me a voice mailbut I may to always be available to respondimmediately. Asalways you may email me and I will
respond as soon as possible.
Thank You,
Jena Gonzalez
Pro Se Plaintiff
Original Message
From: Valerie Cantu
Sent: Nov 4, 2011 9:44 AM

To: Jena Gilliam
Cc: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
Subject: RE: Jena Gonzalez vs. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our File No. 100-506
Dear Ms. Gonzalez:
As 1advised in my most recent telephone call to you earlier today, we agree to the revisions requested by you to the draft Agreed Docket Control Order. Accordingly, we have revised the Order to include your requested changes. Attached is the revised Order, which has been signed by me as one of the lead counsel for Defendant South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. Please countersign the Agreed Order and return your executed signature to me by no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 7, 201 I, so that I may
timely file the Order with the court.
Regarding your inquiry as to Mr. Hilliard, so that we are all on the same page, 1have included Mr.
Hilliard as a cc: to this e-maii. You may recall that Mr. Hilliard was co-counsel for our clientat the small claims trial, as well as personal counsel for both South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. and Dr. Darrel
Ferris. He continues to be co-counsel and personal counsel for our client in this county court matter.
Attached is a copy of the Notice of Appearance of Counsel of Defendant, which we filed with the court
today (By certified mail, return receipt requested, you shall receive a separate copy of the Notice as a cc:
to our November 4, 2011 letter to the Nueces County Court Clerk).
Very truly yours,
http://webmail.peoplepc.com/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=201&x==1495147970
4/16/2012
lie" 11 RE: Jena Gonzalez vs. South T**"*hs Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our Fileô. 100-506
Page 2 of 3
Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney at Law O'Connell & Avery LLP 13750 San Pedro, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Telephone: (210)824-0009 Telecopier: (210)824-9429
This e-mail message is a privileged and confidential communication and is transmitted for the exclusive information and use of the addressee. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, or retransmit this e-mail message, and destroy it immediately. You are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail message or any of the information contained within it is prohibited,
From: Jena Gilliam [mailto:gil4584@peoplepc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:57 AM
To: Valerie Cantu
Subject: Re: Jena Gonzalez vs. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our File No. 100-506
Dear Ms. Cantu:
Attached for your review and consideration is a revised Agreed Docket Control Order. Also, I would like to know the interest that Mr. Bob Hilliard has in this case. He is not a party to this suit nor is he listed as counsel for the defendant. Unless a joinder of additional parties is filed 1request that he no longer participate as counsel for the defendant.
Thank You,
Jena Gonzalez
Pro Se Plaintiff
Original Message
From: Valerie Cantu
Sent: Oct 31, 2011 9:31 AM

To: gil4584(5)peoplepc.com
Subject: Jena Gonzalez vs. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our File No. 100-506
Dear Ms. Gonzalez:
Attached for your review and consideration is a proposed Agreed Docket Control Order, based on the May 14, 2012 jury trial setting ordered by the court. If you have any requested revisions to the enclosed Order, please call me at (210) 824-0009, ext. 303. Otherwise, please forward your executed signature to the Order to me by return e-mail or by facsimile transmission to my attention at (210) 824-9429, so that I may file the Order with the court. As you know, Judge Chesney's Court Manager, Ms. Lillian Fanning, requested I submit an Agreed Docket Control Order to her within 10 days of the October 28, 2012 hearing, which is November 7, 2011. Consequently, I ask that you please respond to this conferral correspondence by no later than Thursday, November 3, 2011, so that we may reach an agreement on the Order prior to November
7th.
Very truly yours,

Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney at Law
0000137
http://webraail.peoplepc.com/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=201&x:=1495147970 4/16/2012
RE: Jena Gonzalez vs. South Tâs Veterinary Associates, Inc.; Our File "Mo. 100-506
Page 3 of 3
O'Connell & Avery LLP

Telephone: (210)824-0009 Telecopier: (210)824-9429 This e-mail message is a privileged and confidential communication and is transmitted for the exclusive information and use of the addressee. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, or retransmit this e-mail message, and destroy it immediately. You are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail message or any of the information contained within it is prohibited.
PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet

htto://www.DeoDleDC.com
PeoplePC Online \ better way to Internet
lttp://www.peoplepc.com
http://webmail.peoplepc.com/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=201&x=1495147970
4/16/2012
0000138
<no subject>
Page 1 of 1
<no subject>
From:
To:
Robert Hilliard <bobh@hmglawfirm.com>

gil4584@peoplepc.com, Valerie Cantu
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
<no subject>
Nov3, 2011 1:21 PM
381ODD86-05FD-48E8-A161-6F37E56E347C.png D329E0F4-BF65-4EA1-9AA6-
18E58957F4ED.png
Valerie,
Please file a Notice of Additional Counsel and have it reflect that I represent Dr. Ferris.
Please amend our answer to allege this is a frivolous lawsuit brought solely for the purpose of harassment and be sure to calculate all attorney's fees and other costs so, at the appropriate time, we can ask that the Gonzalez plaintiff be
responsible for payment of same.
URobert c. Hilliard
Board certified: personal injury and civil trial law bobh(a),hmglawfirm, com
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales l.l-p.
719 South Shoreline Suite 500
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 www, hmglawfirm. com
ui\/ir: I I i V I S**
HILUARD MUNOZ GONZALES
http://webmail.peoplepc.corri/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=9814&x=1790010983
0000139 4/12/2012
RE: Mediation
Page 1 of 2
RE: Mediation
From:
To:
Valerie Cantu <valeriec@oconben.com>

Jena Gonzalez
Subject:
RE: Mediation
Date:
Apr 11, 2012 12:52 PM
Dear Ms. Gonzalez:
You are correct that I previously advised you that no monies would be offered to you at mediation, since our
clients' doctors continue to believe that they did nothing wrong in treating your cat and since the underlying insurance policy requires the doctor's consent to settlement as a prerequisite to any settlement negotiations and
offers being made and no such consent has been given by the doctors. Regarding the doctors' lack ofknowledge
of the court order regarding mediation, pursuant to the relevant insurance policy, the insurer controls and directs the defense and therefore, the order ofreferral to mediation was sent to the insurer's attention for handling; however, since the doctors do not consent to settlement, the insurer cannot offer any money to you at mediation. The insurer asked me to let you know this fact up front before any mediation took place, so that you would not come to mediation with an expectation of money being offered to you. Given the Board's recent finding of no wrongdoing by Dr. Shaffer and given the evidence that came to light during the deposition of Dr. Rogers, Mr. Hilliard instructed me to file a counterclaim and summary judgment motion against you, as he and the Defendant feel that your continued pursuit of your claims is groundless and harassing to the Defendant and itsdoctors. The doctors are willing to mediate this matter to enable you a chance to try to resolve the counterclaim, but I respect your decision to forego mediation and will advise Mr. Milliard, the Defendant, and the insurer accordingly. In addition, pursuant to your below request, I will ask the Dispute Resolution Center to cancel the April 20th
mediation.
Best regards,
Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney at Law

13750 San Pedro, Suite 1 10 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Telephone: (210)824-0009 Telecopier: (210)824-9429
This e-mail message is a privileged and confidential communication and is transmitted for the exclusive
information and use ofthe addressee. Ifthe reader ofthis e-mail message is not the intended recipient ora representative of the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, or retransmit this e-mail message, and destroy it
immediately. You are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying ofthis e-mail message orany of
the information contained within it is prohibited.
From: Jena Gonzalez [mailto:gil4584@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:10 PM
To: Valerie Cantu
Subject: Mediation
Dear Ms. Cantu,
As you are aware Iattempted to schedule court ordered mediation with you on or about the week ofMarch 26, 2012, as required by the court order. You informed me that your client was not going to agree to any monetary
settlement therefore mediation would not be scheduled. During depositions itwas discovered that Dr. Ferris nor Dr. Shafferwere even aware of the mediation order. I did not receive an objection to the mediation order. The
http://webmail.peoplepcxorrVwam/printablejsp?msgid=I9206&x=-373739310
4/12/20ftO 0140
RE: Mediation
-^
Page 2 of 2
agreed Docket Control Order states the deadline to mediate as March 30, 2012.1 am concerned that taking additional time offof work to mediate will be futile. It has been my position all along to try and settle this case prior
to the expense of trial as several attempts by me have failed. Ifyour clients are serious about a settlement agreement perhaps an offer should be made to me in writing. Discovery is ending on April 13, 2012, therefore we are all aware of each others position in this case. I have attached an updated record of my expenses to date. I am unable to discuss this matter via telephone as I am at work. Please cancel the mediation date of April 20, 2012, at 9:00 am as previously scheduled via our telphone conversation this morning.
Sincerely,
Jena Gonzalez
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet

http://www.peoplepc.com
htrp://webmail.peoplepc.cornywam/printable.jsp?msgid=19206&x=-373739310
4/12/2612
O'CONNELL &. AVERY LLP

13750 SAN PEDRO, SUITE KO

TelephoME CEIOJ 6 2 4 - 0 0 0 9
Email: valeriec@ocohben.com
Facsimile I'ai'oi B24-94ZS
November 4, 2011
Via CertifiedMail/RRR 7010 0780 00016593 9035

Nueces County Clerk 901 Leopard Street, Room 201

Re: Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc., in the County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
Dear Ms. Barrera:
Enclosed for filing with the court is a Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Defendant

Also enclosed is a copy of Defendant's Notice of Appearance.
envelope. .
Please file-stamp the
enclosed copv of this letter and return it to our firm in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid
We thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,
tow} ui
Valerie L. Cantu
/VLC
cc:
(Via CJWRRR 7010 0780 0001 6593 9042, w/Ehc.)

Ms. Jena Gonzalez
T? 17 Aransas
0000142

Jena Gonzalez
Plaintiff
v.
Associates, Inc.
Defendant
In the County Court
At Law No. 5
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Undersigned counsel for Defendant SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES,
INC. ("Defendant") hereby give formal notice of appearance of Mr. Keith B. O'Connell and Ms.
Valerie L. Cantu of O'Connell & Avery Law Firm, LLP, 13750 San Pedro, Suite 110, San
Antonio, Texas 78323 (Telephone: (210) 824-0009 & Telecopier: (210) 824-9429) as lead
counsel for Defendant.
Undersigned counsel for Defendant also give formal notice of appearance of Mr. Robert
C. Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales L.L.P. as additional counsel of record for Defendant and
as personal counsel for both Defendant and Dr. Darrel Ferris.
100-506
Page I
0000143
Respectfully submitted:
O'CONNELL & AVERY, LLP
Keith B. O'Connell State Bar No. 15179700 Valerie L. Cantu State Bar No. 24012498

and
bv: iwul C. JwmIsMmjmjmviWs

Robert C. Hilliard '
719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
100-506
Page 2
0000144
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
IN THE COUNTY COURT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
Plaintiff asks the court to sanction Defendant's Retained Testifying Expert, Alan Garett, DVM and
Defendant's Attorney Valerie L. Cantu for discovery abuse.
A. INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff is Jena Gonzalez; Defendant is South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.
2.
Plaintiff sued
Defendant for Veterinary Malpractice,
Breach of Contract,
Negligent
Misrepresentation, and Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior.
3.
Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 1 discovery control plan. The discovery period
ended on April 13, 2012.
4.
2012.
This case is set for hearing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment hearing on May 1,-
B. FACTS
5.
During the April 5, 2012, Deposition of Defendant's Retained Testifying Expert Alarn
-~--a 3>
DVM, Plaintiff identified conduct that justifies sanctions. Alan Garett, DVM and Defendant's E&grney^ c/>
Valerie L. Cantu submitted a transcript of a recorded conversation between Alan Garett, DVM and
Pg-1
0000145
9 Plaintiffs Retained Testifying Expert, Robert (Bob) Rogers, DVM. This recording was obtained as a
violation of state law. Therefore, the court should sanction Defendant's Retained Testifying Expert, Alan Garett, DVM and Defendant's Attorney Valerie L. Cantu by imposing death penalty sanctions.
6.
Plaintiff attaches affidavits to this motion to establish facts not apparent from the record.
C. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES
7.
The purpose of sanctions is to secure compliance with the rules, to deter future violation of
the rules, and to punish parties that violate the rules. Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849
(Tex. 1992).
8.
When considering sanctions, the court should ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
TransAmerican Nat Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991). When the court decides to sanction, the sanctions must have a direct relationship to the offensive conduct, measured by a direct
nexus among the conduct, the offender, and the sanctions imposed. Spohn Hosp. v. Mayer, 104 S.W.3d
878, 882 (Tex. 2003); Trans- American, 811 S.W.2d at 917. The court must not impose sanctions more
severe than necessary to promote full compliance with the rules. Spohn Hosp., 104 S.W.3d at 882;
Chrysler Corp., 841 S.W.2d at 849.
9.
The Texas Supreme Court defines "death penalty sanctions" as "sanctions that terminate a
party's right to present the merits of its claims." State v. Bristol Hotel Asset Co., 65 S.W.3d 638, 647 (Tex.
2001). Such sanctions include striking a party's pleadings, dismissing its action, or rendering a default
judgment against a party for abusing the discovery process. Id. Death penalty sanctions must be
reserved for circumstances in which a party has so abused the rules of procedure, despite imposition of
lesser sanctions, that the party's position can be presumed to lack merit and it would be unjust to
permit the party to present the substance of that position before the court. TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d
at 918.
Pg-2
0000146
10. Death penalty sanctions should not be used to deny a trial on the merits unless the guilty party's conduct is so bad that it "justifies a presumption that its claims or defenses lack merit." Hamill v. Level, 917 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex.1996); Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 850 (Tex.1992);
TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 918.
11. Death penalty sanctions are appropriate in this case because Defendant's Expert Witness and Attorney have committed egregious misconduct. Defendant's Retained Testifying Expert, Alan Garett, DVM recorded a private conversation between himself and Plaintiffs Retained Testifying Expert, Robert "Bob" Rogers, DVM on January 14, 2012. The conversation was recorded in the State of Florida while
both veterinarians were attending a professional conference. Dr. Rogers was unaware he was being
taped and did not consent to the recording of their private conversation. The recording was transcribed
by Kim Tindall & Associates, Inc., 645 Lockhill-Selma, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas, 78216. It was
marked as "Exhibit D" in the deposition of Alan Garett, DVM conducted on April 5, 2012.
Florida's
wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire,
oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. See Fla.
Stat, ch. 934.03. Florida law states, "whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41". Dr. Garett is in

violation of TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 22, PART 24 CHAPTER 573, RULE 573.4 ADHERENCE
TO THE LAW; No veterinarian shall commit any act that is in violation of the laws of the State of Texas,
other states, or of the United States, if the act is connected with the veterinarian's practice of medicine.
A complaint, indictment, or conviction of a law violation is not necessary for the enforcement of this rule. Proof of the commission of the act while in the practice of, or under the guise of the practice of, veterinary medicine is sufficient for action by the board under this rule.
Pg-3
0000147
According to TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Rule 1.02 Scope and Objectives
of Representation state (e) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that the lawyer's client has committed a criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's
services have been used, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to persuade
the client to take corrective action. Rule 3.03 states, (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (2) fail to disclose
a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act; Rule 4.01
, states. In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act
or knowingly assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client, and finally Rule 8.04 states, (a) A lawyer
shall not: (3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
12. Even though the court has not used a lesser sanction, it has considered lesser sanctions and
Defendant's Expert Witness, Alan Garett, DVM and Attorney, Valerie L. Cantu's conduct justifies the presumption that her defenses lack merit. Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 842 (Tex. 2004).
P. CONCLUSION
13. Dr. Garett's and Ms. Cantu's egregious misconduct reflects negatively on each of their
professions and subjects them to criminal and civil charges by the aggrieved party(s). Therefore,
Defendant, Dr. Garett, and Ms. Cantu are subject to sanctions.
E. PRAYER
14. For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the court to set this motion for hearing and, after the hearing,
sanction Defendant's Expert Witness, Alan Garett, DVM and Attorney, Valerie L. Cantu for abuse of the
discovery process and sign an order awarding sanctions against Defendant for death penalty sanctions
Pg-4
0000148
and rendering a default judgment in the amount of $50,000 against the party for abusing the discovery
process.
By:
t/vJ^^
Jejna Gonzalez, Pro Se Plaintiff

3717 Aransas St.
~3
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above and forgoing pleading or document has been served upon all attorneys of and any parties who are not represented by an attorney on this 18th day of April 2012, by certifiedmail, return receipt requested 70101870 0000 7697
8047 to:
Attorney for:
Attorney's name:

Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney's address:
Pg-5 0000149
934.03 - Interception and disclo^'re ot wire, oral, or electronic commun'ûons promoite...
rage 1 or s
The Florida Senate

2011 Florida Statutes
TITLE XLVII
CHAPTER 934
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS
VIEW ENTIRE CHAPTER
934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person
who:
(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic
communication;
(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: 1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a
wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
2.
Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the
transmission of such communication;
(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic cornrnunication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this
subsection;
(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or
electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2) (c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/934.03
4/17/8(000150
934.03 - Interception and disclo'-ire of wire, oral, or electronic commun' ^nons promoite...
rage z 01 s
the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and
intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized

criminal investigation;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4). (2)(a)l. It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934:09 for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or
electronic communication service whose facilities are used in the transmission
of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his or her employment while engaged
in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his or her service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. 2. Notwithstanding any other law, a provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, may provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a person authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications if such provider, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person, has been provided with: a. A court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge;
or
b. A certification in writing by a person specified in s. 934.09(7) that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required.
4/170lQ0 151
934 03 - Interception and disclo-'te of wire, oral, or electronic commune ^Tions pronione...
rage juio
3. A provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person may not disclose the existence of any interception or the device used to accomplish the interception with respect to which the person has been furnished an order under ss. 934.03-934.09, except as may otherwise be
required by legal process and then only after prior notice to the Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or a state attorney, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure renders such person liable for the civil damages provided under s. 934.10, and such personmay be prosecuted under
s- 934.43. An action may not be brought against any provider of wire, oral, or electronic communication service, or an officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other person for providing information, facilities, or
assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under ss. 934.03934.09.
(b) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an officer, employee, or agent of

the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his or her
employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by

the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. ch. 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained. (c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law
enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative

or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act. (d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire,
oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the
communication have given prior consent to such interception. (e) It is unlawful to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act.
4/17/fijQi) 0152
934 03 - Interception and disclr -re of wire, oral, or electronic commurr
*ions pronibite...
rage 4 or s
(f) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an employee of a telephone company to intercept a wire communication for the sole purpose of tracing the origin ofsuch communication when the interception is requested by the recipient of the communication and the recipient alleges that the communication is obscene, harassing, or threatening in nature. The individual
conducting the interception shall notify local police authorities within 48

hours after the time of the interception.
(g) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an employee of:

1. An ambulance service licensed pursuant to s. 401.25, a fire station
employing firefighters as defined by s. 633.30, a public utility, a law enforcement agency as defined by s. 934.02(10), or any otherentity with
published emergency telephone numbers; 2. An agency operating an emergency telephone number "911" system
established pursuant to s. 365.171; or 3. The central abuse hotline operated pursuant to s. 39.201
to intercept and record incoming wire communications; however, such employee may intercept and record incoming wire communications on designated "911" telephone numbers and published nonemergency telephone numbers staffed by trained dispatchers at public safety answering points only.
It is also lawful for such employee to intercept and record outgoing wire
communications to the numbers from which such incoming wire
communications were placed when necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term "public utility" has the same meaning as provided in s. 366.02 and includes a person, partnership, association, or corporation now or hereafter owning or operating equipment or facilities in the state for conveying or transmitting messages or communications by telephone or
telegraph to the public for compensation. . (h) It shall not be unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for any person:
4/17&0UO 153
934.03 - Interception and disclr ^re of wire, oral, or electronic commirrr 1+ions prorubite...
rage D or 5
1. To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public. 2. To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted: a. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; b. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including any police or fire communications system, readily accessible to the general public; c. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or d. By any marine or aeronautical communications system. 3. To engage in any conduct which: a. Is prohibited by s. 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or b. Is excepted from the application of s. 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by s. 705(b) of that act. 4. To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station of consumer electronic equipment to the extent necessary to identify the source
of such interference.
5. To intercept, if such person is another user of the same frequency, any . radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted'made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system. 6. To intercept a satellite transmission that is not scrambled or encrypted
and that is transmitted:
a. To a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or b. As an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to
the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, when such interception is not for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage
or private financial gain.
4/lftftfli) 154
934.03 - Interception and discln-'re of wire, oral, or electronic commun'" îons protubite...
rage o or a
7. To intercept and privately view a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or to intercept a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules
of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or
encrypted, if such interception is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial
gain. (i) It shall not be unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09:
1.
To use a pen register or a trap and trace device as authorized under ss.
934.31-934.34 or under federal law; or
2. For a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service,
from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of such service.
(j) It is not unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser which are transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer if: 1. The owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the communications of the computer trespasser; 2. The person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation; 3. The person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the communications of the computer trespasser will be . relevant to the investigation; and 4. The interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to, through, or from the computer trespasser. (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.
4/17/fb9D 0155
934 03 - Interception and disclr-^re of wire, oral, or electromc commun*- ^.lons proniDite...
rage / oi o
(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:
1. As otherwise authorized in paragraph (2)(a) or s. 934.08;
2. With the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
3. To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to

forward such communication to its destination; or
4.
Which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which
appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to

a law enforcement agency.
(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.
(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) and is not for any tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) was
committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or
transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then: 1. If the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone
cornrnunication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted
between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service corrununication, or a paging service cornrnunication, and the conduct is not that described in subparagraph (2)(h)7., the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 2. If the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, the
4/17/20KJO 0156
934.03 - Interception and disclr-'re of wire, oral, or electronic commun- /tions protubite...
rage 8 ot 8
person comrmtting the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. History.-s. 3, ch. 69-17; s. 1163, ch. 71-136; ss. 2, 3, ch. 74-249; s. 249, ch. 77104; s. 1, ch. 78-376; s. 187, ch. 79-164; s. 2, ch. 80-27; s. 1, ch. 87-301; s. 2, ch. 88184; s. 2, ch. 89-269; s. 1582, ch. 97-102; s. 18, ch. 99-168; ss. 7, 9, ch. 2000-369; s.
2, ch. 2002-72; s. 30, ch. 2010-117.
Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respectivechambers should be consulted for
official purposes. Copyright 2000-2012 State of Florida.
4/17/0(Q0 0157
March 29, 2012
Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.
Kim Tindall and Associates, LLC. Phone:(210) 697-3400

Fax:(210)697-3408
Emaikktindall@ktanda.com
Internet: www.KimTindall.com
0000158
Conversation b-twe-n Alan Garatt^^^ fend Robert [Bobl P.ogars,
Mirch 2,
1012
Page 1
CAUSE NO.
JENA GONZALEZ
2011-CV-61850-5
IN THE COUNTY COURT
vs .
NUECES COUNTY,
TEXAS
AT LAW NO.
TRANSCRIPTION OF AUDIO RECORDING
CONVERSATION BETWEEN
ALAN GARETT, DVM AND ROBERT "BOB" ROGERS, DVM

JANUARY 14, 2012 '
Kim Tindall Associates, Inc. 645 Lockhill-Selma, Suite 200
Phone
{210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
Electronically signed by Tammy Pozzi {001-241-268-3188}
0000159
Conversation between Alan Garstt,
^m.a nd
Robert (Sob)
P.ogera.
March 25,
2012
Page 2
02
1 2
DR.
GARETT:
This
is
Dr.
Alan Garrett.
I'm about to play back for you the conversation that I
3
4 55:19 5
had with Bob Rogers taken on January 14th of this year,

2012, in Orlando, Florida, at 9:48 a.m.
(unintelligible).
Please listen,
6
7
DR. GARETT:
You said something earlier --
DR. ROGERS:
I really want to talk to you
Let's get together for lunch or something.

56:13 10 11
(unintelligible) lunch with me if they can

(unintelligible).
12
13 14
58:16
15 16
17
18
19
58:43
20
21 22
23 24 59:16 25
cat?
DR.
GARETT:
handle that with every
Inc. 645 Lockhill-Selma, Suite 200
San Antonio,
Texas 78216
Phone
(210)
697-3400
Fax
(210)
697-3408
Electronically signed by Tammy Pozzi {001-241-268-3188)
e4a27b39-79d8-4be5-9;
7l fl fl '} *fi 0
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COUNTY COURT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
PRO SE PLAINTIFF JENA GONZALEZ'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
To:
Valerie L. Cantu, Attorney for the Defendant O'Connell & Avery LLP
For her Complaint, Pro Se Plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, alleges as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. At alt times herein, Plaintiff was a resident of Nueces County, Texas.
2. At all times herein and on information and belief, Defendant was resident of Nueces County,
Texas and operated a veterinary clinic as an incorporated business, South Texas Veterinary
Associates Inc., known as Santa Fe Animal Hospital in Nueces County, Texas. On information
and belief, the business is owned by Defendant Darrel L. Ferris, who employs Defendant David
G. Shaffer.
3. Venue and Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 15.002
because the activities that gave rise tothe claim for relief occurred in Nueces County, Texas.
4. The plaintiff affirmatively pleads that she seeks only monetary relief aggregating $5Q,p.00 or I
excluding cost, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees under the Texas Rules ofCivJB>ro
Rule 190.2.
Pg-1
0000161
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. Plaintiff acquired a cat, Kitty Kat Gonzalez, approximately October 2003. Kitty Kat's prior
medical or vaccination history was unknown.
6. On December 17, 2008, Pfaintiff took Kitty Kat to Santa Fe Animal Hospital for a facial wound
where she was examined by Dr. David Shaffer.
7. On December 17, 2008, Dr. David Shaffer injected Kitty Kat with (a.) Schering-Plough Fevaxyn
Feline Leukemia Vaccine Killed Virus Serial: 208256 Exp.: 12 May 10; (b.) Merial Purevax Feline
4/Rabies Rhinotracheitis-Calici-Panleukopenia-Chlamydia Psittaci Rabies MLV and Chlamydia

Canarypox Vector Serial: 68054 Exp.: 12 Feb 09; and (c.) 0.45cc of Convenia.
8. The defendant was under a duty of care toward the animal in question. Dr. David Shaffer had
accepted the responsibility to treat Kitty Kat.
9. Santa Fe Animal Hospital is and has been for twenty-five years, accredited by American Animal
Hospital Association (AAHA). Accreditation by AAHA means Santa Fe Animal Hospital passed a
voluntary evaluation of more than 900 standards. AAHA accreditation makes the representation
that Santa Fe Animal Hospital is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of care for your
pet.
10. On March 15, 2010, Kitty Kat Gonzalez received (a.) Schering-Plough Fevaxyn Feline Leukemia
Vaccine Killed Virus Serial: 208265 Exp.: 22 Jan?; and (b.) Merial Purevax Feline 4/Rabies
Rhinotracheitis-Calici-Panleukopenia-Chlamydia Psittaci Rabies MLV and Chlamydia Canarypox

Vector Serial: 68060 Exp.: 06 Oct 10.
11. On October 7, 2010, six and a half months after receiving vaccinations, Plaintiff noticed Kitty Kat
was limping. Upon inspection noticed her right rear leg had a golf ball size swelling and quarter
size draining ulceration. On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff took Kitty Kat to Santa Fe Animal
Pg-2
0000162
Hospital for an exam. Dr. David Shaffer aspirated the swelling with a needle and withdrew
cloudy material. Dr. David Shaffer prescribed Clavamox drops to be given daily.
If no
improvement in 5-7 days return. Plaintiff called Santa Fe Animal Hospital on October 16, 2010,
to make an appointment but there was not any availability.
12. Plaintiff took Kitty Kat to Baldwin & Crosstown Animal Clinic on October 16, 2010, after
improvement was not observed. Dr. Piatt examined Kitty Kat and immediately suspected
Vaccine Associated Sarcoma and recommended treatment immediately.
13. On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff took Kitty Kat to Doddridge Animal Clinic where she was
examined by Dr. Melody Guzeldere. Dr. Guzeldere performed a Fine Needle Aspirate cytology
examine and confirmed a diagnosis of Vaccine Associated Sarcoma. Right hind leg amputation
surgery was performed on October 21, 2010, by Dr. Guzeldere.
14. During the period of November 17, 2010, through February 4, 2011, Kitty Kat was a patient at
South Texas Veterinary Specialist, LLP. Dr. Israel, Surgeon and

performed a second surgery and administered chemotherapy.
Dr. Randall, Oncologist,
15. Kitty Kat Gonzalez was euthanized on February 14, 2011, due to Vaccine Associated Sarcoma.
DEFENDANT'S VIOLATION OF DUTY OF CARE
The defendant violated the duty ofcare to the plaintiff to exercise the ordinary care and
diligence exercised by other veterinarians in the same or similar circumstances, and was
negligent in one or more of the following particulars:
16. Dr. David Shaffer failed to follow the Convenia Manufacturer's dosage instructions which state,
"A sample of the lesion should be obtained for culture and susceptibility testing prior to
beginning antimicrobial therapy". This injection increased the risks of Kitty Kat developing
Vaccine Associated Sarcoma and was unnecessary. Dr. Shaffer could have prescribed pills or
liquid antibiotics. The American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Feline
Pg-3
0000163
Practitioners and the American Animal Hospital Association state, "Therapeutic antimicrobial
use should be confined to appropriate clinical indications. The definitive diagnosis should be
established whenever possible, and empirical use avoided".
17. Dr. David Shaffer did not inform or explain to Plaintiff the benefits, risks, or names of the
injectionsor note that plaintiff was informed in Kitty Kat's medical records.
18. Administered all vaccines/injections in the same location, the right rear hip in the coxofemoral
joint area, thereby increasing the risk of Kitty Kat developing Vaccine Associated Sarcoma and
making it difficult and nearly impossible for successful removal.
19. Dr. David Shaffer did not document the location of the injections in Kitty Kat's medical records.
20. Dr. David Shaffer did not perform the FeLV (Feline Leukemia Virus) blood test prior to
administering the FeLV (Feline Leukemia Virus) vaccine as recommended on theSchering-Plough

Fevaxyn Feline Leukemia Vaccine label which states, "prior exposure to the disease, or disease
latency, are conditions in which vaccination will not alter the course of the disease. Therefore,
diagnostic testing of all cats for FeLV antigen prior to vaccination is recommended".
21. Dr. David Shaffer failed to use the safest FeLV (Feline Leukemia Virus) vaccine available but
instead used a vaccine that contained adjuvants, is classified as a carcinogen by the World
Health Organization, and the most likely to cause Vaccine Associated Sarcoma. Vaccine
Associated Sarcoma is. a known side effect of adjuvanted vaccines.
Kitty Kat's Vaccine
Associated Sarcoma occurred at the injection site ofthe administered adjuvanted vaccine. Kitty Kat's Vaccine Associated Sarcoma occurred at the known interval for developing Vaccine
Associated Sarcoma. A safer alternative would have been Merial PUREVAX' Recombinant
Leukemia Vaccine and the VET JET transdermal vaccination system which is made without the
use of adjuvants.
Pg-4
0000164
22. Dr. David Shaffer failed to follow the dosage instructions on the Schering-Plough Fevaxyn Feline Leukemia Vaccine label which states "Initial vaccination: Inject 1 dose (1 mL) subcutaneously or
intramuscularly at 9 weeks of age or older. Second vaccination: Inject 1 dose (1 mL)

subcutaneously or intramuscularly 3 to 4 weeks following the initial vaccination. Two doses are
required for primary immunization". Kitty Kat received an initial dose on December 17, 2008,
and a second dose on March 15, 2010, fifteen months apart.
23. Dr. David Shaffer failed to disclose to Plaintiff the warning on the Schering-Plough Fevaxyn
Feline Leukemia Vaccine label which states, "some reports suggest that in cats, the administration of certain veterinary biologicals may induce the development of injection-site
fibrosarcomas" and "it is important to advise the cat owner of these situations prior to
vaccination".
24. Dr. David Shaffer failed to inject vaccines as distally as possible as recommended by the Vaccine
Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force which consists of representatives from the American
Animal Hospital Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Veterinary
Cancer Society, the American Association of Feline Practitioners, the Animal Health Institute,
and the Cornell Feline Health Center.
25. Dr. David Shaffer failed to comply with Schering-Plough Fevaxyn Feline Leukemia Vaccine and
Merial Purevax Feline 4/Rabies manufacturer's dosage instructions which states it is
"recommended for the vaccination of healthy cats" , although Kitty was brought in for a facial
abscess wound which required an injection of Convenia.
26. Dr. David Shaffer failed to adhere to vaccination protocols as recommended by The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, American Association of Feline Practitioners, American
Animal Hospital Association, and American Veterinary Medical Association Vaccine Associated
Sarcoma Task Force, which are Rabies according to State Law or local ordinance, Panleukopenia Pg-5
0000165
Virus (FPV) /Feline Herpesvirus-1 and Feline Calicivirus (FHV-1/FCV) every three years,
Chlamydia is not recommended, and Feline Leukemia only in kittens. Dr. David Shaffer instead
used his own vaccination schedule which resulted in injury and subsequent death of Kitty Kat. 27. Dr. David Shaffer is negligent of administering unnecessary vaccines that provided no benefit
which resulted in the death of Kitty Kat from Vaccine Associated Sarcoma.
28. Dr. David Shaffer failed to follow recommendations set forth by the Vaccine Associated Feline
Sarcoma Task Force, which consists of representatives from the American Animal Hospital
Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Veterinary Cancer Society, the
American Association of Feline Practitioners, the Animal Health Institute, and the Cornell Feline
Health Center, by performing a biopsy on lesion when Vaccine Associated Sarcoma is suspected. 29. Defendant negligently treated Kitty Kat, failed to properly diagnose Kitty Kafs condition, and
was otherwise negligent in the care provided to Kitty Kat.
30. Defendants' negligence administration of unnecessary and harmful products, which are known
to be associated with risk of Vaccine Associated Sarcoma, failure to adhere to vaccine manufacture's labels, and failure to disclose the risks and benefits so Plaintiff could make an
informed decision regarding the care and treatment of Kitty Kat deviated from the standard of
care and was the proximate cause of Kitty Kat's death.
Each and every one of the foregoing acts and omissions, taken separately and
collectively, constitute a direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages described
below.
COUNT I
Malpractice
31. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 30.

32. Kitty Kafs death was due to deviation from the standard or care.
Pg-6
0000166
33. Defendant negligently and carelessly treated Kitty Kat, proximately causing her death.
34. Lack of informed consent caused the death of Kitty Kat. Dr. David Shaffer did not inform
Plaintiff that the vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe, provided no benefit, or to look for a lump
at the injection site and have it removed.
35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the loss ofKitty
Kat; expenses for two emergency surgeries, chemotherapy, time off from work, euthanizing
Kitty Kat, sentimental value, loss of companionship, adoption of Daria, and expenses related to
litigating this case.
COUNT II
Breach of Contract
On December 17, 2008 and March 15, 2010, the plaintiff, Jena Gonzalez, and the defendant, Dr.
David Shaffer, orally contracted for veterinary care regarding the plaintiff's feline, Kitty Kat. Under the
terms of the oral agreement, the plaintiff would receive the benefit of the vaccinations and other
treatment in consideration for payment.
The defendant breached the contract by administering unnecessary vaccines that provided no
benefit to the feline, which was the direct and proximate result of the feline's death. Thus, the plaintiff
did not receive the benefit promised.
36. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 - 35. 37. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant forveterinary careof her pet Kitty Kat.
38. The services provided by Defendant were inadequate, substandard, and otherwise did not
conform to the contract for service with the Plaintiff.
39. As a directand proximate resultof Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered the loss
of Kitty Kat; expenses for two emergency surgeries, chemotherapy, time off from work,
pg. 7
0000167
euthanizing Kitty Kat, sentimental value, loss of companionship, adoption ofDaria and expenses
related to litigating this case.
COUNT III
Negligent Misrepresentation
Dr. David Shaffer represented himself as knowledgeable veterinarian. The Plaintiff believed that
Dr. David would administer only necessary, safe, and beneficial vaccines to Kitty Kat. Plaintiff also
believed Dr. David Shaffer would administer vaccines at proper intervals and proper injection site
locations to reduce any adverse event possibilities which were known to be true by Dr. David Shaffer.
The defendant's representation that Kitty Kat needed all vaccinations was false and at the time the
representation was made, the defendant knew it to be false. The defendant made the false
representation with the intent of inducing the plaintiff to (Get the cat vaccinated). The defendant's
purpose in making the false representation was to secure a larger fee from the plaintiff than would
otherwise have been charged.
Plaintiffs Reliance
The plaintiff relied on the false representation by the defendant that the plaintiff's feline
(Needed Vaccinations). The plaintiff believed the false representation to be true, and through the
representation was induced to consent to the vaccination for the plaintiffs feline. Immediately after the
plaintiff consented, the defendant injected the plaintiff's feline with three different injections on Kitty
Kat's right hind leg at coxofemoral joint area on December 17, 2008 and two additional injections on
March 15, 2010, in the same area. As a result of the vaccines, Kitty Kat developed Vaccine Associated
Sarcoma. Kitty Kat was euthanized on February 14, 2011, as a result ofVaccine Associated Sarcoma.
40. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 39.
Pg-8
0000168
41. On December 17, 2008 and March 15, 2010, Defendant Dr. David Shaffer, acting in his professional capacity, failed to observe the package instructions for the vaccine(s) and asserted
that a different re-vaccination cycle be adopted without scientific support and against protocols
recommended The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, American Association of
Feline Practitioners, American Animal Hospital Association, and American Veterinary Medical
Association Vaccine Associated Sarcoma Task Force.
42. Defendant Dr. David Shaffer, acting in his professional capacity, misrepresented the safety of
unnecessary vaccines, adjuvanted vaccines, and vaccines which provided no benefit to Kitty Kat
by failing to inform the Plaintiff the risks and benefits of such vaccines. Defendant Dr. David
Shaffer breached his duty to Plaintiff when he misrepresented the safety of unnecessary
vaccines, adjuvanted vaccines, and vaccines which provided no benefit to Kitty Kat. Dr. David
Shaffer failed to do due diligence regarding the treatment and care of Kitty Kat.
43. Plaintiff relied upon the representation of Defendant Dr. David Shaffer in the treatment and
care of Kitty Kat.
44. As a direct result of Defendants' negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of
Kitty Kat; expenses for two emergency surgeries, chemotherapy, time off from work, euthanizing Kitty Kat, sentimental value, loss of companionship, adoption of Daria and expenses
related to litigating this case. False statements and negligent misrepresentation is not an
exercise of care.
COUNT IV
Vicarious Liability / Respondeat Superior
45. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-44.
46. At all times herein, Defendant Dr. David Shaffer was an employee of an incorporated business,
South Texas Veterinary Associates Inc., known as Santa Fe Animal Hospital in Nueces County,
Pg-9
0000169
Texas, owned by Defendant Dr. Darrel L Ferris. Dr. David Shaffer was acting within the scope of
his employment at the time of said negligent acts and was under the authorization, direction
and/or control of Defendant Dr. Darrel L. Ferris, and therefore the negligence of Defendant Dr. David Shaffer is imputed to his principal and/or master Defendant Dr. Darrel L Ferris through
the legal principals of vicarious liability/respondeat superior.
As a directand proximate cause of the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff incurred
expenses for the intrinsic value of Kitty Kat, sentimental value, loss of companionship, medical
care and attention, veterinarian fees, medical supplies, and medicine, hospitalization, travel,
loss orwork, adoption ofDaria, and expenses related to litigating this case. These expenses
were incurred for necessary care and treatment of the injuries resulting from the incident
complained of. The charges are reasonable, and theywere the usual and customary charges
made for such services in Nueces and Bexar County, Texas.
Prayer
a. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on her causes of action against the

Defendants, and the following:
1.
2.
3.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000.

Prejudgment and postjudgment interest.
Cost of suit.
4.
Attorney fees.
5.
Such other and further relief to which the plaintiff may be justly entitled.
bv:--ôia_ \jjn\.n/$^2
pg.10
0000170

3717 Aransas St.
attorney on this 18th day of April 2012, by certified mail, return receipt requested 70101870 0000 7697
8047 to:
Attorney for:
Attorney's name:
Attorney's address:

Valerie L. Cantu

pg-n
0000171
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5

>
IN THE COUNTY COURT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
PRO SE PLAINTIFF JENA GONZALEZ'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL DEFENDANT'S NO-EVIDENCE & TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT OF ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS And
DEFENDANT'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OF ITS COUNTERCLAIM

Pro Se Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez asks the court to deny Defendant's South Texas Veterinary
Associates, Inc. (Defendant) motion to seal certain court records.
A. Introduction
1.
Plaintiff is Jena Gonzalez; defendant is South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.
2.
Plaintiff sued defendant for Negligence, Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation and
Vicarious Liability / Respondeat Superior.
3.
records:
Defendant South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc. asks the court to seal the following court
Defendant's No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of All of Plaintiffs
Claims and Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary judgment of its Counterclaim.
B. Facts
4.
i-4 Plaintiff files this response'at" least seven days before the date Defendant's mbtio*to
U~7
court records is set for hearing, as required by Texas Rule ofCivil [Procedure 76a(4).
^
M
.11
Pg-1
0000172
5.
The sole argument presented by Defendant is that the "lawsuit involves personal allegations
against the reputation and integrity of the Defendant, its veterinarian employees, and its veterinary
Practice". Also stated, "Evidence attached to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment includes some
evidence and statements that may be private in nature". Such an argument is insufficient both as a matter of law and of policy. Neither defendant's motion nor the attached affidavits, however,
specifically identify facts indicating how the dissemination of the information at issue would result in
damage, what that damage might be, or whether or not the damage would be immediate and
irreversible.
6. This case is but one example of the impact of veterinarians failing to obtain informed consent,
creating their own vaccination schedules, and failing to adhere to the manufacture's vaccine label regarding dosage and instructions. Disclosure of this information could very well save companion
animal lives and protect guardians from undue financial burdens regarding the treatment and care of
their pets
C. Argument & Authorities
7.
The Texas Constitution guarantees public access to court records. Tex. Const., art. 1, 8; see
U.S. Const, amend. 1. The common law recognizes an indisputable public right of access to judicial
proceedings and judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The presumption of open records is based on the need to preserve the public's right to monitor its judicial
system. Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1985). To overcome the
presumption of openness, courts must find acompelling need to protect agreater interest. See NAACP
v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438-39 (1963).
8. In cases that end with a grant of summary judgment a citizen cannot monitor whether the
judge based his decisions on proper considerations without having access to the materials the judge
Pg-2
0000173
relied upon. See Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) ("[Documents used by parties moving for,
or opposing, summary judgment should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons.").
9.
The court should deny the motion to seal court records because Defendant cannot
demonstrate, as required by Rule 76a(l)(a), a serious, specific, and substantial interest in sealing the
records that clearly outweighs (1) the presumption of openness and (2) any probable adverse effect on
the general public health and safety. The court should not seal the records because the purpose of requiring a "specific, serious and substantial interest" in order to seal was to avoid generalized claims "such as promoting settlement, avoiding injury to reputation, [or] expediting discovery." See Doggett <S
Mucchetti, supra note 124, at 668-69.
10. The court should deny the motion to seal court records because Defendant did not properly
post the notice of the motion, as required by Rule 76a(3). The rule requires the issuance of a public
notice regarding the nature of the cases and the records sought to be sealed, and requires that a public
hearing be held on the motion not less than fourteen days after the motion is filed and the notice
posted.
11. The court should deny the motion to seal court records because Defendant did not file a
verified copy of the notice with the clerk of this court and with the clerk of the Texas Supreme Court, as
required by Rule 76a(3).
D. Conclusion
12. For these reasons, Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez asks the court to deny Defendant South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.'s motion to seal the following court records: Defendant's No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of All of Plaintiffs Claims and Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary judgment of its Counterclaim.
Pg-3
0000174
E. Prayer
13. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Seal.
Plaintiff prays for all such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Plaintiff may show itselfto
be justly entitled.
Jena Gonzalez, Pro Se Plain

3717 Aransas St.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411 Telephone: (361)425-9359
attorney on this 19th day of April 2012, by certified mail, return receipt requested 7010 1870 0000 7697
8030 to:
Attorney for:
Attorney's name:

Valerie L. Cantu
Attorney's address:
Pg-4
0000175
CAUSE NO. 2011-CCV-61850-5
JENA GONZALEZ
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COUNTY COURT
V.
AT LAW NO. 5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEFENDANT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL DEFENDANT'S NO-EVIDENCE &
TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OF ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

And
DEFENDANT'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OF ITS COUNTERCLAIM
After considering Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion To Seal Defendant's No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of All of Plaintiffs Claims and Defendant's Traditional Motion
for Summary Judgment of its Counterclaim, and the argument of Pro Se Plaintiff, the Court finds that
Defendant's Motion To Seal Defendant's No-Evidence & Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of
All of Plaintiffs Claims and Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of its Counterclaim
should be in all things denied.
SIGNED on
_, 2012.
PRESIDING JUDGE
iQilCIiJVg'ni
By:
\_^>
f,-.\
Jlenj/Gonzalez, Pro Se Pla

3717 Aransas St.
OS!
APR f 3 :.!?
Ul
r>iior ;' .:
Pg-1
0000176

v.
In the County Court
at Law No. 5

Defendant

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO AUTHENTICIY OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
Defendant SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Defendant") files this Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Authenticity of Documents Produced in Discovery, and would respectfully show the Court the following:
I. Regarding Plaintiffs Objection to the February 1, 2012 Letter of Ms. Karen Phillips, Director of Enforcement of the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical
Examiners
Plaintiff objects to Ms. Philip's letter of February 2, 2012 on the ground that the letter is
not authenticated and is hearsay. However, the letter is self-authenticating pursuant to Texas
Rule of Evidence 902 and is an exception to hearsay pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8).
A. The letter is self-authenticated, pursuant to Rule 902 of the Texas Rules of
Evidence.
The letter in question bears the seal of the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
o
(the "TBVME"). The TBVME is the governmental agency and authority charged with
of establishing and enforcing policies to ensure the best possible quality of veterinary ser^gejs
<
=J
PD
lj
ESQ
for the people of Texas and to protect the public at large, including by acting as the govewsfesg
100-506 Page I ( V~ |?
->.rn
tO
P80
ig0000177
authority requiring Texas veterinarians to adhere to the prevailing community standard of care.
See TEX. Occ. Code 801.151 & 801.401 - 801.402. Plaintiffs own retained testifying
expert, Robert ;'Bob" Rogers, DVM, admits this. See Exhibit "B" of Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, at 37:1-7 & 38:11-17.
In addition to her civil suit, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the TBVME against Dr. Shaffer, accusing him of veterinary malpractice regarding the same veterinary treatment and care
at issue in this lawsuit. In response to Plaintiffs complaint, the TBVME carried out its official
duties imposed by law and investigated Plaintiffs complaint and rendered a decision regarding
whether Dr. Shaffer was negligent in treating Plaintiffs cat. Tex. Occ. Code 801.201-
801.206.
Upon completing its investigation, Ms. Phillips, as Director of Enforcement of the
TBVME, signed and issued the letter in question as "official notification" of the TBVME's
completion of its investigation and advising of the TBVME's finding of "no violation" by Dr. Shaffer. See Exhibit "C," of Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment.
Rule 902 of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides: Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (1) Domestic Public Documents Under Seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution. Tex. R. Evid. 902. The letter in question bears the seal of the TBVME (a subdivision and/or
agency of the State of Texas) and is signed by Ms. Karen Phillips, as the Director of
Enforcement of the TBVME providing "official notification" of the TSBVME's investigation
100-506
Page 2
0000178
and decision as to Plaintiffs complaint.

Texas Rule of Evidence 902.
Accordingly, the letter is self-authenticating under
B.
The letter is an e xception to hearsay, pursuant to the Public Records and Reports exception of Rule 803(8) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.
Rule 803(8) of the Texas Rules of Evidence mandates: Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies setting forth: (A) the activities of the office or agency;
(B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel; or
(C) in civil cases as to any party and in criminal cases as against the state, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law;
unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
Tex. R. Evid. 803(8). The letter in question is a record, report and data compilation setting forth the activities of the TBVME to investigate and rule on Plaintiffs complaint and also setting forth the factual findings resulting from the TBVME's investigation pursuant to the authority granted to the TBVME by Texas law. Accordingly, the letter falls under the hearsay exception provided
by Rule 803(8) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(8); see also Tex. Health and Human Servs. Comm'n, 2010 WL 2789777, at *1, 5 (Tex. App.--Austin July 14, 2010, pet. denied) (holding that EEOC determination letter regarding Plaintiffs complaint was admissible pursuant to Rule 803(8) of the Texas Rules of Evidence); Cowan v. State of Tex., 840 S.W.2d
435, (Tex. Crim. App.-1992) (en banc) (holding that report of findings used by the U.S. Martine Corps Medical Board was admissible pursuant to Rule 803(8) of the Texas Rules of Evidence);
Bingham v. Bingham, 811 S.W.2d 678 S.W.2d 678, 684 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 1991, no writ)
100-506
Page 3
0000179
(holding that social study made by social worker who did not testify in court was "a matter authorized and imposed by law upon social workers, and that the workers have the duty to make
such a report" and "the reports consist of factual findings resulting from such investigations made pursuant to authority granted by law" and thus, the report was an exception to hearsay
under Rule 803(8) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).
II.
Regarding Plaintiffs Objection to the certified transcription of the recorded conversation between Dr. Alan Garett and Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers.
Plaintiff objects to the recording of the January 14, 2012 conversation between Plaintiffs
retained testifying expert, Dr. Robert "Bob" Rogers, and Defendant's retained testifying expert,
Dr. Alan Garett, on the ground that the recording was purportedly obtained in violation of
Florida law. However, Plaintiff misapplies Florida law, and notwithstanding, Florida criminal
law is inapplicable to this Texas civil proceeding.
A. Plaintiff misapplies Florida law.
As the basis for her objections, Plaintiff cites Sections775.082, 775.083, 775.084, 934.41,
and 934.03 of the Florida Statutes. Sections 775.082, 775.083, 775.084, and 934.01 are Florida
criminal statutes delineating sentencing guidelines, penalties, and fines for of persons convicted under crimes or other statutory violations of Florida law. Likewise, Section 934.03 is part of
Florida's criminal statutes regarding Criminal Procedure and Corrections (Chapters 900 - 999)
and prohibits interception and disclosure of certain oral communications in certain
circumstances. However, Chapter 934 expressly defines "oral communication" to be ;iany oral
communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any
public oral communication uttered at a public meeting ..." See Fla. Stat. Ann. 934.02(2)
(emphasis added).
100-506
Page 4
0000180
The oral communication in question took place by and between Plaintiffs retained testifying expert, Dr. Rogers, and Defendant's retained testifying expert, Dr. Alan Garett, on
January 14, 2012, in Orlando, Florida, while Dr. Garett and Dr. Rogers (and approximately 6,000
other veterinarians) were attending the 2012 North American Veterinary Conference at an
Orlando resort. During'a break in programming, Dr. Garett and Dr. Rogers conversed, with the
other veterinarians attending the conference program all around them. As such, no reasonable expectation of privacy existed, and Dr. Garett committed no violation of the Florida criminal law cited by Plaintiff. See Fl. Stat. Ann. 934.02(2); see also Stevenson v. State of Fla., 667 So.2d 410, 412-13 (Fla. App. [1st Dist.] 1996, rehearing denied) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy existed where conversation in question was held "in the road just north of an intersection" rather than in an enclosed, private, or secluded area); Dept. of Agric. and Consumer Servs. v. Edwards, 654 So.2d 628, 632-33 (Fla. App. [1st Dist.] 1995, review denied)
(explaining that Section 934.03 only protects oral communications where there is "a societal
recognition that the expectation [of privacy] is reasonable" and finding no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding a conversation occurring during a meeting between an employee and his supervisors in the supervisor's office to discuss a grievance filed by the employee); see Jatar v.
lamaletto, 758 So.2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. App. [3rd Dist.] 2000) (affirming that, under Florida law,
"Society is willing to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in private homes, but the expectation does not automatically extend to conversations held outside the home, even as to conversation conducted in private business offices) (emphasis added). Furthermore, Dr. Rogers is Plaintiffs retained testifying expert, and Dr. Garett is
Defendant's retained litigation expert, and Dr. Rogers voluntarily communicated with Dr. Garett
regarding this specific litigation matter. As a litigation testifying expert voluntarily conversing
100-506
Page 5
0000181
with the opposing party's litigation expert, no reasonable expectation of privacy existed regarding the experts' conversation.
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the recording in question is admissible.

B. The Florida criminal law cited by Plaintiff is irrelevant and inapplicable to this Texas civil litigation matter.
Florida criminal statutes are irrelevant and inapplicable to this Texas civil suit regarding
the alleged veterinary malpractice of Defendant and its veterinarian, Dr. David Shaffer. Instead,
only Texas statutes and Texas case law are relevant to this litigation.
Dr. Rogers is Plaintiffs retained testifying expert witness. As such, any statements made
by him regarding the alleged wrongdoing of Defendant and its veterinarians are both relevant
and discoverable. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e) & 194.2)(f) & (i); see also Tex. R. Evid. 401 & 402. The recorded statements of Dr. Rogers were voluntarily made by him to Defendant's
designated expert, Dr. Garett, and specifically regard whether Dr. Rogers actually faults the
veterinarians of Defendant's practice for the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Dr. Rogers' recorded statements are relevant and admissible under Texas law.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant SOUTH TEXAS
VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. prays that the Court OVERRULE Plaintiffs objections to
the summary judgment evidence in question and subsequently GRANT Defendant's pending
combined Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, along with such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled.
100-506
Page 6
0000182
By:
1icku C. milicjvl} W jw\wwmjvi \}\P

719 S. Shoreline, Ste. 500 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361)882-1612
Telecopier: (361)882.3015
and
Keith B. O'Connell
State Bar No. 15179700 Valerie L. Cantu

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES. INC.
100-506
Page 7
0000183
This is to certify that a true, full and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant's
Original Answer has, this IatK day of April, 2012, been delivered, via certified mail, return
receipt requested, to:
3717 Aransas
mi y. U^ UL
Valerie L. Cantu
100-506
PageS
0000184
O ' C o n n e l l & Avery

attorneys and
llp
mo
counselors
i37bo s a n
pedro,
suite
San A n t o n i o . Texas 7 8 3 3 2
Telephone 12IO) S21-0009
Email: vale r; ec @ocon b em . co m
'
Facsimile lElO) S24-9429
April 18,2012 Via Certified Mail/RRR 7011 2970 0000 0243 6745
Nueces County Clerk 901 Leopard Street, Room 201 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Re: Cause No. 201 l-CCV-61850-5; Jena Gonzalez v. South Texas Veterinary Associates. Inc., in the County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
Dear Ms. Barrera:
Enclosed for filing with the Court is the following: Defendant South Texas Veterinary Associates, Inc.'s Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Authenticity of Documents Produced in Discovery.
Also enclosed is a copv of the foregoing document. We ask that you please filestamp the copy with the date and time of Filing of same and return the copy to our firm via the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.
By copy of this letter and its enclosure, Plaintiff is being served same via the means
indicated below.
We appreciate your assistance with this matter.
.-
Very truly yours,
tlUAULfl. UaMAl
Valerie L. Cantu
cc:
(Via CM/RRR, w/Enc: 7011 2970 0000 0243 6752)

Ms. Jena Gonzalez
3717 Aransas
0000185

13-12-00519-Cv-Clr-Vol 1 of 2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

13-12-00519-Cv-Clr-Vol 1 of 2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CAUSE NO.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

South Texas Veterinary Associates, INC.

Notice of Appeal Plaintiffs Original Petition Small Claims Court

Filed :09/02/11 Filed:09/02/11

Defendant's Original Answer to Plaintiffs Original

Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Directed

Filed:09/02/11 Filed:09/02/11 Filed:10/10/11 Filed:10/10/11

Agreed Docket Control Order

Email from Jena Gonzalez

Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary

Defendant's Motion to Seal Defendant's No-Evidence

And Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of

Defendant's First Amended Original Answer to

Plaintiffs Objection to Authenticity of Documents Produced in Discovery

Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery Sanctions

Pro Se Plaintiff Jena Gonzalez's Response to

And Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment of

Motion for Summary Judgment of its Counterclaim

Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Authenticity of Documents Produced in Discovery

In the County Court at Law #5

South Texas Veterinary Associates, INC.

3 *^?J " ' g^rnfS'"1* ]rv!

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION SMALL CLAIMS COURT

PLAINTIFF'S NAME: ADDRESS/CITY/ZIP

.3111 ftncLK)5(iS Sh Cj>epiL5 Chasti rx Wtt

HEREINAFTER called PLAINTIFF(S), on oath, deposes and says that

: hitJLel Pz/t/zis , kvy/i

HEREINAFTER called DEFENDANT(S), is (are) JUSTLY INDEBTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS

'<EALCourt Cler:k/Notary Precinct

Nueces County, Texas

MILITARY STATUS AFFIDAVIT

Case No. r^Q\\ -SOQDOV~^^A

In the Justice Court

Defendant ftfSOCiCbkS IX/v7CLr

Nueces County, Texas

BEFOREME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared

I am the Plaintiff OAttorney of record for the Plaintiff inthis proceeding:

O Defendant is not in the military

1 am unable to determine whether ornot the Defendant is inmilitary service.

Attorney ofRecord Signature

Clerk of the Justice Court (STRIKE ONl| i\ f

In the Justice CouR^^ggfc^p^

South Texas Veterinary

Nueces County, Texas

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Defendant SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Defendant") files

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing,

State Bar No. 24012498

SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES,

Ms. Jena Gonzalez 3717 Aransas

Corpus Christi, Texas 78411

O'CONNELL & AVERY LLP

I37SO SAN PEDRO, SUITE HO

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7B232

4626 Weber Road, Suite 300

I very much appreciate your assistance with this matter.

Via CM,RRR 7010 0780 0001 6593 6188

, Corpus .Christi, Texas 78411; *":""

Jena Gonzalez Plaintiff

3 ^?J " ' g^rnfS'"1 ]rv!