Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION On September 15, 2021, CPS served its First Set of Interrogatories (consisting of eight interrogatories) and its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (consisting of twelve requests) on Defendant Ridgeway Freight Services Inc. ("Ridgeway"). Ridgeway's responses were due on or before October 4, 2021. Ridgeway served its responses on that date. Upon review, CPS determined that Ridgeway's res

II. BACKGROUND A. The Dispute CPS is an Ohio limited liability company headquartered at 4500 Needmore Road, Dayton, Ohio 45424. CPS is engaged in specialty packaging manufacturing and industrial chemical coatings, serving customers in the automotive, aerospace, consumer goods, and industrial manufacturing sectors. CPS ships approximately 14,000 truckloads per year from five manufacturing facilities located across Ohi

1. Inflated Per-Mile Rates: $1,104,891.53. Of the 9,843 invoices rendered during the Overcharge Period, 4,217 invoices reflect per-mile FTL rates that are eight to twelve percent (8–12%) above the rates specified in Exhibit B to the MTSA (inclusive of the contractual 2.5% annual escalator). This category represents the largest component of CPS's damages.

2. Improper Fuel Surcharge Calculations: $387,412.66. CPS's forensic analysis has determined that Ridgeway calculated fuel surcharges using a seven-day lagging DOE diesel price index — that is, the DOE index published for the week preceding the week of the shipment — rather than the same-week DOE index required by Exhibit C to the MTSA. Because diesel prices generally trended upward during the Overcharge Period, the

3. Unauthorized Accessorial Charges: $241,008.00. Ridgeway billed CPS for liftgate fees, detention charges, and re-delivery fees totaling $241,008.00 during the Overcharge Period. CPS's review of these charges has revealed that they were billed without any supporting delivery documentation (such as driver-signed delivery receipts, detention logs, or liftgate usage records) and without prior authorization as required

4. Duplicate Invoices: $114,320.00. Eighty-three (83) invoices during the Overcharge Period were submitted by Ridgeway and paid by CPS twice. CPS identified these duplicate payments during its accounts payable audit and has demanded reimbursement. C. Procedural History On July 19, 2021, CPS filed its Original Petition in this Court asserting claims for breach of contract, money had and received, common-law fraud, and

III. SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES A. Interrogatory Deficiencies

1. Interrogatory No. 1 — Identification of Rate-Setting Personnel. The Request. Interrogatory No. 1 asked Ridgeway to identify, by name, title, job description, and dates of employment, each person at Ridgeway who was involved in setting, adjusting, approving, or implementing the freight rates applied to CPS invoices during the Overcharge Period (February 1, 2019 through March 31, 2021). Ridgeway's Response. In respo

2. Interrogatory No. 5 — Oral Modification Contentions. The Request. Interrogatory No. 5 asked whether Ridgeway contends that the MTSA was orally modified or amended at any time during its term and, if so, to identify: (a) the date or dates of the alleged oral modification; (b) the individuals who were parties to or participated in the conversation or conversations in which the modification was allegedly agreed upon;

1. Request No. 2 — Rate Files, Rate Tables, and Rate Change Logs for the CPS Account. The Request. Request for Production No. 2 sought all rate files, rate tables, rate cards, and rate schedules maintained by Ridgeway for the CPS Account during the Overcharge Period, including any versions reflecting changes or adjustments to the rates applicable to CPS shipments. Ridgeway's Response. In response, Ridgeway produced a

2. Request No. 3 — Internal Communications Regarding CPS Pricing and Billing. The Request. Request for Production No. 3 sought all communications between or among Ridgeway employees, officers, or agents concerning the rates, pricing, or billing applicable to CPS during the Overcharge Period. This includes, without limitation, emails, instant messages, memoranda, notes, and any other form of written or electronic comm

3. Request No. 5 — Fuel Surcharge Calculation Data. The Request. Request for Production No. 5 sought all documents relating to the fuel surcharge calculations applied to CPS invoices during the Overcharge Period, including the DOE diesel price data used in each calculation, spreadsheets, calculation logs, and system reports. Ridgeway's Response. In response, Ridgeway produced fourteen (14) pages of generic fuel surch

4. Request No. 6 — Accessorial Charge Documentation. The Request. Request for Production No. 6 sought all documents relating to accessorial charges applied to CPS invoices during the Overcharge Period, including delivery receipts, driver logs, detention records, liftgate usage records, and re-delivery documentation. Ridgeway's Response. Ridgeway responded by stating that "delivery documentation is maintained by drive

5. Request No. 8 — Billing System Documentation. The Request. Request for Production No. 8 sought all documents relating to Ridgeway's billing system as it pertains to the CPS Account, including system manuals, user guides, configuration settings for the CPS Account, and any audit logs showing changes to rate settings for the CPS Account during the Overcharge Period. Ridgeway's Response. Ridgeway objected on the grou

IV. GOOD-FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE CPS has satisfied the good-faith conferral requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 191.2 and Local Rule 3.04 of Tarrant County. Specifically: On October 8, 2021, undersigned counsel sent a detailed meet-and-confer letter to Marcus T. Hogue at Bartlett, Hogue & Sinclair LLP, counsel for Ridgeway, identifying each of the deficiencies described above in Ridgeway's October 4, 2021

V. LEGAL STANDARD Motions to Compel. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1(b) provides that if a party fails to respond to or supplement a discovery request, or serves responses that are evasive or incomplete, the requesting party may move for an order compelling answers or production. The court shall compel discovery if it determines that the responding party's objections are without merit. The burden is on the party

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED For all of the foregoing reasons, CPS respectfully requests that the Court enter an order: (a) Compelling Ridgeway to serve full and complete responses, without objection, to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 5 within seven (7) days of the date of the Court's order, including: (i) Interrogatory No. 1: Complete identification, by name, title, job description, and dates of employment, of all persons at Ri

VII. CONCLUSION Ridgeway's responses to CPS's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents are materially deficient. The discovery CPS seeks goes to the very heart of this dispute: the rates Ridgeway actually programmed and applied to CPS invoices, the identities and roles of the individuals responsible for those rate settings, the fuel surcharge methodology Ridgeway employed, th