I. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS ... DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF ALLEN H. FEIGE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER-Page I 348-276014-14

CAUSE NO. 348-276014-14

MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company,

Plaintiffs vs.

JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THEJOHNP.VILLARREAL IRREVOCABLE TRUST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL IRREVOCABLE TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC WIDTE OAK PERFORMANCE HORSES LLC, AND J. SUZETTE & CO., INC.

Def end ants.

§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

34gth JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS

COMES NOW, Defendants and files their Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions

and in support would respectfully show :

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Allen H. Feige has been designated by the Defendant's as their expert witness.

Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Request.for

Disclosure dated November 15, 2016.

2. On January 24, 2017, Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to take the

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF ALLEN H. FEIGE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Page I

348-276014-14 FILEDTARRANT COUNTY

2/16/2017 10:02:54 AMTHOMAS A. WILDER

DISTRICT CLERK

Deposition of Allen H. Feige Subpoena Duces Tecum. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true

and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to take the Deposition of Allen H Feige

Subpoena Duces Tecum and letter of Plaintiff's Counsel.

3. Defendants' objected to the requests made of its expert witness. Attached hereto

as Exhibit "C" is the Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Notice of Intent to take the Deposition

of Allen H Feige Subpoena Duces Tecum.

4. The requests in the Subpoena Duces Tecums included in the deposition notices

are in excess of what is discoverable of expert witnesses, and overbroad, burdensome and

harassing; the documents sought can be obtained from other sources that are more convenient,

less burdensome and less expensive; outside the scope of permissible discovery; seeks

documents that are not relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence; invades confidential

matters; invades rights protected by U.S. and Texas Constitutions; is duplicative of the

documents requested to be produced in Response to Request for Disclosure, fail to provide the

proper time for a response, the requests are no more than a fishing expedition and constitute

harassment prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, fail to comply with the Texas

Finance Code and fail to show a need for tax returns and/or lack of other means to obtain the

information sought in the tax return.

5. The Court has broad discretion to protect a party with a protective order. In re

American Optical Corp. 998 SW 2d 711,713 (Tex. 1998) (fishing expedition), Hoffman vs. 5th

District Court of Appeals, 756 SW 2d 723,723 (Tex.1988) (invasion of protected rights), In re

Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company 227 SW 3d 667,669-670 (Tex.2007) (limitation of

scope), Texaco Inc. vs. Sanderson 898 SW 2d 813,815 (Tex.1995)(overbroad requests) a party

may ask the Court to grant a protective order to prevent a fishing expedition, harassing discovery

requests, overbroad discovery requests and invasions into protected rights.

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF ALLEN I-I. FEIGE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Page 2

u. SANCTIONS AND ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

6. Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly contacted Defendant's expert witness seeking

infonnation, record and concessions from him. Defense counsel has notified plaintiffs counsel

to cease and desist from contacting Defendant's expert witness and requesting him provide

documents outside of the case and outside of the rules with respect to discovery regarding expe1i

witnesses. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is Defense Counsel's letter of February 11, 2017.

HI. PRAYER

WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested the Court grant the Protective Order with

regard to the Subpoena Duces Tecum and sanctions, and an Order prohibiting Plaintiff from

contacting Defendant's expert witness directly and, such other and further relief to which it may

show itself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THE FEIN LAW FIRM, P .C.

Eric D. Fein State Bar No. 06879020

Vickie S. Brandt State Bar No. 24031878

15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001 Telephone: (214) 522-9596 Facsimile: (214) 522-9599

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF ALLEN H. FEIGE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE . ·--

Defendant's counsel supplied a copy of the motion to Plaintiffs counsel on February 15, 2017. Defendant's counsel called Plaintiff's counsel on February 15, 2017 and spoke. Thereafter, Defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel on February 16, 2017 that she does not agree to this motion.

Certified this 16th day of February, 2017.

Eric D. Fein


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ----~--------

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document was forwarded via E-File, Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, First Class Mail,

Facsimile, and/or Hand Delivery on this the 161h day of February, 2017.

Via File and Email to: [email protected] Lisa Lumley Lisa Lumley Law 5104 Arbor Mill Drive Ft. Worth, Texas 76135

Eric D. Fein


CAUSE NO. 348-276014-14 .M:IKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company

Plaintiffs

v.

§ § § § § § § § § § § § §

JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE § VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P. § VILLARREAL TRUST, THE SUZETTE § L. VILLARREAL TRUST, § VILLARREAL CONSUL TING, LLC, § WHITE OAK PERFORMANCE § HORSES LLC and, J. SUZETTE & CO., § INC., §

Defendants §

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

348111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

TO: Plaintiffs MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company, by and through their attorneys of record, Lisa Lumley, Lisa Lumley Law, 5104 Arbor Mill Drive, Fort

Worth, Texas 76135.

Defendantss provide the following Supplemental Responses to Requests for Disclosure in

the above-entitled and numbered cause, pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure to Plaintiffs MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON

ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON

WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner,

7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company, for purposes of

DEFENDANTSS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAJNTffFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE I

this action only.

By:

~f};_i_1Ji.{{2_fe inl~~ulun. corn Vickie S. Brandt State Bar No. 24031878 \1branc!t@f~ii:ila\yfirr:n,cq111 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001 Phone: 214-522-9596 Fax: 214-522-9599 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTSS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document was forwarded via E-Mail Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, First Class Mail,

~ Facsimile, and/or Hand Delivery to the attorney for Defendants on this the 11 day of November

2016.

Via E-mail and First Class Mail Lisa Lumley Lisa Lumley Law State Bar No. 13962800 5104 Arbor Mill Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76135 (817) 238-8985 (817) 887-2656 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTSS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE-PAGE 2

( e) The name, address, and telephone mm1ber of persons having knowledge of relevant facts,

and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case.

RESPONSE: - .

John Villarreal Suzette VillalTeal J. Suzette & Company, Inc. c/oThe Fein Law Finn, P.C. 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001 214-522-9596 Defendantss

Eric D. Fein Vickie S. Brandt The Fein Law Firm, P.C. 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001 214-522-9596 Defendants' Attorneys

MIKE HARVISON HOLLIE HARVISON HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY KAY HARVISON PARKER JOY HARVISON STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK JOHN H. HARVISON 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company c/o Craig M. Crockett THE CROCKETT FIRM 5070 Mark IV Parkway Fort Worth, Texas 76106 Plaintiffs

Mark Bronson 5070 Mark IV Parkway Fort Worth, Texas 76106 Plaintiffs' employee

Blake Reynolds 408 Byrne Street

DEFENDANTSS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 3

McKinney, TX 75069 Former Chief Operating Officer, J Suzette & Company, Inc.

Craig M. Crockett THE CROCKETT FIRM 5070 Mark IV Parkway Fort Worth, Texas 76106 Plaintiffs' former attorneys

Lisa Lumley Lisa Lumley Law State Bar No. 13962800 5104 Arbor Mill Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76135 (817) 238-8985 Plaintiffs' attorneys

Allen H. F eige Allen H. Feige, P.C. 1005 One Energy Square 4925 Greenville A venue Dallas, Texas 75206 Defendants' Expert Witness

(f) For any testifying expert:

RESPONSE:

1. The expert's name, address, and telephone number; 2. The subject matter on which the expert will testify;

The general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information; and If the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party:

a. All documents, tangible things, repo1is, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared

by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and b. The expert's current resume and bibliography.

Eric D. Fein Vickie S. Brandt The Fein Law Firm, P.C.

DEFENDANTSS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS' REQlJESTS FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE .t

15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001 214-522-9596 Defendants' attorneys

Defendants believe that the above named attorneys will testify regarding attorney's fees incurred in the defense of claims in connection with this case. Reasonable attorney's fees will be discussed with regard to the defense of Plaintiffs' claims up to and including the trial of this case and any and all appeals, as well as rebuttal testimony on attorney's fees that Defendants may assert. Cmrent curricula vitae have been reduced to tangible form and previously served on Plaintiffs' counsel.

NON-RETAINED EXPERT WITNESS

Allen H. Feige Allen H. Feige, P.C. 1005 One Energy Square 4925 Greenville A venue Dallas, Texas 75206 Defendants' Expe1i Witness

Defendants believe that this expert will provide expert testimony on the Independent Accountant's Repmi that he provided regarding his evaluation of all transactions in the requisite period including cancelled checks, deposits, bank statements, bank transfers, payments and other financial information and transactions the subject matter of the lawsuit, including the AIR Officers account. Defendants believe that this expert reviewed payments made by the Defendants from personal accounts that were made directly to 7HBF Ltd and payments made directly to Veritas that satisfied liabilities of the corporation thereby reducing the Officer's AIR and such payments were not considered or contemplated in Plaintiffs' claims in its Petition. Defendants believe that this expert will provide expert testimony that after considering all of the accounts and transactions, that the final balance owed to the AIR Account is no greater than $42,250.68. Defendants believe that this expert will testify that the analysis was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Defendants believe that this expe1i's opinion will be based upon his education, training and experience and his status as a Certified Public Accountant. See also Independent Accountant's Report provided by Allen H. Feige, CPA on September 26, 2016.

Defendants reserve the right to call to testify and hereby designates any timely designated expert witness( es) listed by any other party to this lawsuit. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this designation with additional designation of experts within the time limits imposed by the Court or any alteration of such deadlines by subsequent Court Order or agreement of the parties. Defendants reserve the right to elicit, by way of cross-examination, opinion testimony, and adverse testimony, from experts and non-expert witnesses designated and called by other parties to this suit. Defendants reserve the right to call un-designated rebuttal expert witnesses whose testimony cam1ot reasonably be foreseen until the presentation of evidence in this trial. Defendants reserve the right to withdraw the designation of any expert and to aver positively that any such previously designated expert will not be called as a witness at trial, and to re-designate

DEFENDANTSS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 5

same as a consulting expert, who cannot be called by opposing counsel.

DEFENDANTSS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSliRE- PAGE 6

Lisa Lumley Law [email protected] I www.Lisalurnleylaw.com

0: 817-238-8985 I F: 817-887-2656 I 5104 Arbor Mill Drive I Fort Worth, Texas

via email to [email protected] Mr. Allen Feige, CPA Allen H. Feige, PC 4925 Greenville Ave fl 1005 Dallas, Texas 75206

Re: Cause No. 348-276014-14; Mike Harvison et al v. John Villarreal et al

January 24, 2017

Deposition scheduling, document production agreement, and acceptance of subpoena

Mr. Feige:

Pursuant to your phone conversation with my office, please let this letter confirm your agreement to comply with the subpoena and appear for a deposition in the above-referenced lawsuit as further detailed in the attached Notice and Subpoena. To confirm, the deposition date, time and location are as follows:

DATE: TIME: LOCATION:

February 27, 2017 10 a.m. and continuing day-to-day until complete 5070 Mark IV Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76106.

Thank you for also agreeing to produce the responsive documents by February 13, 2017. Where possible, please produce the accounting information, especially the Quickbooks files, in electronic format such as on a flash drive.

If you have any questions, feel free to call or email.

Very truly yours,

Lisa Lumley

Enclosure cc Eric Fein & Vickie Brandt via email to [email protected] & [email protected]

CAUSE NUMBER 348-276014-14

MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, 8 s KAYE HARVISON, JOY HARVISON, 8 s STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, and s s 7HBF, LTD., by and through its s s General Partner, 8 s 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO, LTD., LLC § a Texas limited liability company. 8 s

s s Plaintiffs s s

§ 34grn JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. s s

8 s JOHN VILLARREAL, § SUZETTE VILLARREAL, § THE JOHN P .VILLARREAL § IRREVOCABLE TRUST, § THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL § IRREVOCABLE TRUST, s s VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC § WHITE OAK PERFORMANCE § HORSES LLC, and § J. SUZETTE & CO., INC. s s

s s Defendants. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF ALLEN H. FEIGE

TO: ALLEN H. FEIGE

Also to: counsel for Defendants Eric Fein, and Vickie S. Brandt of THE FEIN LA w FmM, P.C. 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225, Addison, Texas 75001.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE pursuant to TEX. R. Crv. P. Rules 205.l through 205.3, you

are hereby given notice that Plaintiffs will serve a Subpoena Duccs Tecum on ALLEN H.

FEIGE requiring the production of documents indicated on Exhibit A of the Subpoena Duces

Tecum on or before February 13, 2017 at the office of counsel for the Plaintiffs located at 5104

Plaint{ffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen If. Feige.

Page 1

Arbor Mill Dr., Fort Worth, Texas 76135. A copy of the Subpoena Duces Tecum is attached

hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

will take the deposition of ALLEN H. FEIGE. This deposition will be recorded

stenographically and by video and audio recording devices and will be held on February 27,

2017 at 10 a.m. at 5070 Mark IV Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76106.

Your attention is directed to the penalties set forth in Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure for failure of the deponent to appear and/or comply with the discovery

requested. Examination will continue from day to day until completed and you are invited to

appear to cross-examine said witness.


Isl Lisa Lumley

Lisa Lumley State Bar No.: 13962800 Lisa Lumley Law 5104 Arbor Mill Dr. Fort Worth, TX 76135 (817) 238-8985 - Telephone (817) 887-2656- Fax [email protected] ATfORNEY FoR PLAINTIFFS


I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Plaimiffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Olin Linke was served on the following counsel on the 24th day of January, 20 I 7 pursuant to Rule 21 a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:

Eric Fein Vickie S. Brandt THE FEIN LAW FIRM, P .C. 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001

Via Electronic Mail: efein@feinlaw(irm.com Via Electronic lvlail: [email protected]

Isl Lisa Lumlev Lisa Lumley

Plaintiffv' Notice of Intellf to Take the Deposition of Allen H. Feige.

Pagc2


MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, s s IN THE DISTRICT COURT HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, s s KA YE HARVISON, JOY HARVISON, s s STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, and § 7HBF, LTD., by and through its s s General Partner, § 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO, LTD., LLC s s a Texas limited liability company. §

s s Plaintiffs §

§ 34gn1 JUDICIAL DISTRICT YS. §

§ JOHN VILLARREAL, § SUZETTE VILLARREAL, § THE JOHN P.VILLARREAL s s IRREVOCABLE TRUST, s s THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL s s IRREVOCABLE TRUST, s s VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC s s WHITE OAK PERFORMANCE s s HORSES LLC, and § J. SUZETTE & CO., INC. §

§ Defendants. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM - ALLEN FEIGE

TO: TO ANY SHERIFF OR CONSTABLE OF THE ST ATE OF TEXAS OR OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SERVE AND EXECUTE SUBPOENAS AS PROVIDED IN TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176.

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON ALLEN H. FEIGE WHO IS HEREBY COMMANDED, at the instance of Plaintiffs Mike Harvison, Hollie Harvison, Hope Harvison, Kaye Harvison, Joy Harvison, Stacie Harvison Woodcock, and 7HBF, Ltd., in Cause No. 348-276014-14 pending in the 343r1i District Court, Tarrant County, Texas to serve a copy of this Subpoena Duces Tecum on ALLEN H. FEIGE wherever found

AND summon said witness to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or tangible things including any and all papers, books, accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, electronic or videotape recordings, data, and data compilations).

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition <~{Mlen ll. Feige.

Pagc3

Such documents and tangible things responsive to Exhibit A of the attached Subpoena Duces Tccum shall be produced by forwarding paper copies or images on reasonably usable storage media (such as CD, DVD, or flash drive) on February 13, 2017 at the office of counsel for the Plaintiffs located at 5104 Arbor Mill Dr., Fort \Vorth, Texas 76135. Such documents and tangible things may be used as evidence in the case.

This subpoena \vas issued under and by virtue of authority or a Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Seek Production of Documents from Non-Party and Notice of Intent to Depose Allen H. Feige pursuant to TEX. R. Civ. P. Rules 205.l through 205.3, which was duly served by counsel for Plaintiff Lisa Lumley of LISA LUMLEY LAW, located at 5104 Arbor Mill Dr., Fort Worth, TX 76135. Such documents and tangible things may be used as evidence in the case.

Contempt. FAILURE BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA SERVED UPON THAT PERSON MAY BE DEEMED A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT R<.OM WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED OR A DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS SERVED, AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR CONFINEMENT, OR BOTH. TEX. R. Civ. P. l76.8(a).

DO NOT !--AIL to return this writ to the 343th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas with either the attached officer's return showing the manner of execution or the witness's signed memorandum showing that the witness accepted the subpoena.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE SIGNED and ISSUED at Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas on this the 24th day of January, 2017.


Isl Lisa Lumley

Lisa Lumley State Bar No.: 13962800 Lisa Lumley Law 5 I 04 Arbor Mill Dr. Fort Worth, TX 76135 (817) 238-8985 - Telephone (817) 887-2656- Fax [email protected] ATI'ORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Plaintij]~·" Notice <~f Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen H. Feige.

Pagc4


MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, § KAYE HARVISON, JOY HARVISON, § STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, and § 7HBF, LTD., by and through its § General Partner, § 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO, LTD., LLC § a Texas limited liability company. §

§ Plaintiffs §

vs.

JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P .VILLARREAL IRREVOCABLE TRUST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL IRREVOCABLE TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC WHITE OAK PERFORMANCE HORSES LLC, and J. SUZETTE & CO., INC.

Defendants.

§ 34gTn JUDICIAL DISTRICT § s s § § s s § § s s § § § § § § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

OFFICER'S RETURN: ALLEN H. FEIGE

I, ________ , delivered a copy of the attached subpoena duces tecum upon ALLEN H. FEIGE at , Texas , in ______ County, Texas, on _____ , 201_, at __ o'clock _.m.

I, ________ , was unable to deliver a copy of this subpoena duces teeum upon ALLEN H. FEIGE at , Texas _____ , rn County, Texas, on , 201_, at __ o'clock

.m. for the following reasons:

By: _______________ _

Person who is not a party and is 18 years of age or older.

Plaintiff~·' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen ll. Feige.

l'age 5

EXHIBIT A

DUCESTECUM

As used in this Subpoena, the following terms have the meanings stated, unless otherwise indicated:

1. "Defendant" or "John Villarreal" means John Villarreal.

2. Defendants" means JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P. VILLARREAL TRUST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC, WHITE HORSE PERFORMANCE HORSES, LLC AND J. SUZEITE CO., INC., collectively or individually, and all of their representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys, and all representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys of JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P. VILLARREAL TRUST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC, WHITE HORSE PERFORMANCE HORSES, LLC AND J. SUZE1TE CO., INC., with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum and any entities affiliated with Defendants along with their agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, affiliates of person purporting to act for such affiliates with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum.

3. "Harvisons" or "Plaintiffs" means MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., 1;rD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company, collectively or individually, and all of their representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys, and all representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys of MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., J;I'D., LLC, a Texas limited liability company with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum and any entities affiliated with Defendants along with their agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, affiliates of person purporting to act for such affiliates with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum.

4. "Document" includes any written, reported, recorded, electronic or graphic matter however produced or reproduced, including, but not limited to, written communications, electronic communications, emails, written and electronic spreadsheets, Excel spreadsheets Quickbooks data, accounting data, drawings, designs, manuals, memoranda, reports, financial reports, notes, letters, envelopes, telegrams, messages (including reports, notes and memoranda of telephone conversations and conferences), studies, analyses, books, articles, magazines, newspapers, booklets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, papers, arithmetical computations, calendars, date books, minutes of meetings and of all other communications of any type, including intra-office and intra-office communications, purchase orders, questionnaires and surveys, charts, graphs, tapes or recordings, punch cards, magnetic tape, disks, drums, printPlaintijfs' Notice o.f Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen fl. Feige.

Pagc6

outs, data and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, intra-corporate drafts of the foregoing upon which notations and writings have been made which do not appear on the original, including any copy thereof and any other items described in the description of "documents" contained in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. "Identify," when used in reference to a person, means to state his or her full name and present or last known residential and business address and telephone number. "Identify", when used in referred to a writing or a document, means to state the type of writing or document (e.g. letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, contract or the like) or some other means of identification; its title, if any; a brief description of the document; date it was prepared and executed; and its present location by address and the name of its custodian. If any such writing \vas, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it.

6. "You" "You" or "Your" or "Yours" means the responding party receiving this Subpoena and the responding party's attorneys, agents, representatives and investigators.

7. "The Ranch" or "Ranch" means the land and improvements generally described as Acres 496, 609, ABS: 397 and ABS 747, TR: 22, SUR Hawkins James located at FM 900 7652 N commonly referred to as 7652 FM 900 North, Sulphur Bluff, TX 75481, more particularly described as follows:

TRACT ONE

All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in Jasper County School Land Survey, Abst. No. 1126, Hopkins County, Texas; being all of that certain Tract Three - 279.8 acres described in deed to Corinne Ray Davis and Colette Ray Buffman dated 1979, recorded in Vol. 399, page 467, Deed Records of said County ;and being more paiticularly described as follows:

Beginning at a Y2 inch iron rod found on the Southernmost Northwest corner of said Tract Three and of said Jasper County School Land Survey, on the Northeast corner of a 548.501 acre tract described in Deed to Olin C. Linke, recorded in Vol. 397, page 284, Official Public Records of said County, and on the Southernmost Northeast corner of the James Hawkins Survey, Abst. No. 397;

Thence N 89 deg. 29' 49" E along the fenced Southernmost North line of said Tract Three and the South line of the Ferdinand Gerlach Survey, Abst. No. 349 - 2359.02 feet lo a 5/8 inch iron rod found on an Ell corner of said Tract Three and on the Southeast comer of said Gerlach Survey;

Thence N 0 deg. 22' 56" W along the fenced Easternmost West line of said Tract Three and the East line of said Gerlach Survey - 996.37 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found on the Northernmost Northwest corner of said Tract Three and on the Southwest corner of a 799.643 acre tract described in Deed to Jonas Helm, recorded in Vol. 292, page 209 of said Real Property Records;

Thence S 89 deg. 45' 13" E generally along the fenced Northernmost North line said

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Mleu H. Feige.

Page 7

Tract Three and the South line of said 799.643 acre tract - 3429.85 feel to a 5/8 inch iron pipe found on the Northeast corner of said Tract Three and on the Southeast corner of said 799.643 acre tract;

Thence S 1 deg. 44' 56" W along the Easternmost East line of said 279.8 acre tract -135.68 feet to the centerline of White Oak Creek, being on the Northernmost Southeast corner of said 279 .8 acre tract and on the Northeast comer of a 51 .606 acre tract described in deed to Corinne Ray Davis, recorded in Vol. 114, page 795 of said Real Property Records;

Thence in a Westerly direction along centerline as follows: N 84 deg.: 03' 41" W- 113.58 feet, S 65 deg. 25' 43" W- 165.02 feet, D 9 deg. 35' 25" W - 72.69 feet, S 22 deg. 34' 13" W - l 99.62 feet, S 22 deg. 34' 52" W- 117.74 feet, S 89 deg. 13' 57" W- 175.18 feet, N 71deg.56' 20" W - 263.08 feet, N 87 deg. 32' 30" W - 132.35 feet, N 88 deg. 48' 47" W - 265.14 feet, S 77 deg. 38' 52" W - 132.44 feet, S 65 deg. 42' 45" W- 71.92 feet, S 17 deg. 03'45" W- 64.07 feet, S 2 deg. 26' 48" E- 154.99 Feet, S 39 deg. 20' 33" W -115.90 feet, N 82 deg. 12" 33" W- 75.38 feet, N 56 deg. 54' 42" W - 135.57 feet, S 89 deg. 54' 38" W- 93.08 feet, S 70 deg. 51' 24" W - 75.75 feet, S 54 deg. 44' 57" W-212.42 feet, S 4 deg. 07' 32" E - 253.54 feet, S l deg. 41' 00" W - 56.00 feet, S 27 deg. 38' 37" E - 102.08 feet, S 5 deg. 53' 51" W- 95.26 feet, S 70 deg. 03' 55" W - 347.44 feet, S 42 deg. 26' 49" W - 114.87, S 30 deg. 19' 19" E- 188.68 feet, S 15 deg. 58' 54" E - -164.77 feet, S 80 deg. 45' 37" E - 98/86 feet, S 44 deg. 19' 18" E - 40.31 feet, S 8 deg. 30' 51" W - 49.37 feet, S 34 deg. 43' 05" W - 218.20 feet, S 4 deg. 09' 06" W -129.08 feet, S 6 deg. 03' 49" W - 59.35 feet, S 66 deg. 09' 00'' W - 35.96 feet, and N 67 deg. 20' 07" W - 46.00 feet to the Northwest corner of a 53.0 acre tract described in Deed to J. Harvey Morrow, recorded in Vol. 197, page 239 of said Real Property Records;

Thence S 16 deg. 42' 28" e along the West line of said 53.0 acre tract - 307. 16 feet lo a capped Vi inch iron rod marked "Swanner" set on the Southwest corner of said 53.0 acre tract; Thence S 89 deg. 04' 56" E along the South line of said 53.0 acre tract - 343.89 feet to a

capped Vi inch iron rod marked "Swanner" set on the Northwest comer of a 44.45 acre tract described in Deed to .J.D. Smith, recorded in Vol. 34, page 759 of said Real Property Records:

Thence S 9 deg. 42' 33" W along the West line of said 44.45 acre tract 704.40 feet to a capped Vi inch iron rod marked "Swanner" set on the Southernmost Southeast of said Tract Three;

Thence N 89 deg. 36' 00" W along the Southernmost South line of said Tract Three -3885.48 feet to a steel T-Post found on the Southwest corner of said Tract Three;

Thence N 0 deg. 24' 29" E along the fenced Westernmost Wes line of said Tract Three and the East line of said 548.501 acre tract - 2344.49 feet to the place of beginning, containing 257.469 acres, more or less.

TRACT TWO

Plaintif.fs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen ll. Feige.

Page 8

All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the Josiah Amerson Survey, Abstract No. 24, the James Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 397, the Samuel Hough survey, Abstract No. 401, and the Richard Price Survey, Abstract No. 747, Hopkins County, Texas; being all of that certain First Tract - 39-709 acres, Second Tract - 11.60 acres, Third Tract - 489.544 acres and the Fifth Tract 4.4745 acres described in Deed to Thriflway Marketing Corporation, dated 1985, recorded in Vol. 452, Page 190, Deed Records of Hopkins County, Texas; and being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at 5/8 inch iron pipe f(mnd on the Southwest corner of a l 00 acre tract described in Deed to J. DeBusk, Jr., recorded in Yo. 371, Page l 00 of said Deed Records and the F. Gerlach Survey, Abst. No. 349, on an Ell corner of said Hawkins Survey, and on the Southernmost Southeast corner of a 1093.656 acre tract described in Deed to Heiro Trust, recorded in Vol. 292, page 224, Real Property Records of said County;

Thence S 89 deg. 56' 47" E along the fenced North line of said Third Tract and the South line of said Gerlach Survey - 1371.64 feet to a capped Vz inch iron rod marked "Swanner" set on the Northeast corner or said Third Tract, the Southernmost Northeast corner of said Hawkins Survey, and on the Southernmost Northwest corner of the Jasper County School Land Survey, Abst. No. 1126;

Thence S 0 deg. 34' 48" W along the fenced East line of said Third Tract and of said First Tract, at 5,267 feet passing the Northernmost Southwest corner of last said Survey; and at a total distance of 7726.97 feet to a capped Vz inch iron rod marked "Swanner" set on the Southeast corner of said First Tract.

Thence in a Northern direction along the East right-of-way line of F.M. Highway No. 900 as follows: a curve to the right having a chord bearing N 46 deg. 37' 51" W - 1004.68 feet, an arc length of 10 I 7 .67 feet, and a radius of 1835 .08 feet, NO. 30 deg. 55' 24" W-3600.55 feet, a curve to the right having a chord N 38 deg. 33' 16" W - 514.82 feet, an arc length of 516.28 feet, and a radius of 1985.08 feet, N 45 deg. 29' 03" W - 3328.00 feet, N 59 deg. 44' 49" W - l 03 .08 feet, N 45 deg. 44' 30" W - 1031.23 feet, and a curve to the right having a chord bearing N 30 deg. 57'27" W - 705.42 feet, and arc length of 713.30 feet, and radius of 1382.69 feet to a capped Vz inch iron rod marked "Swanner" set on the Northwest corner of said Third Tract and on the Southwest corner of said l 096.656 acre tract;

Thence in an Easterly direction along the fenced North line of said third Tract and the Southernmost south line of said 1096.656 acre as follows: S 88 deg. 36' 11" E - 1563.96 feet, S 88 deg. 40' 40" E- 719.85 feet, S 71 deg. 13' 39" E-48.03 feet, S 88 deg. 02' 59" E - 838.68 feet, S 0 deg. 22' 34" W- 71.55 feet, and N 89 deg. 47' 56" E 2005.71 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING containing 548.501 acres, more or less.

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen IJ. Feige.

Page 9

I. INSTRUCTIONS

1. TIME: Should you the responding party maintain that any of the discovery requests contained herein are ambiguous regarding the time frame in which you are to respond, you are instructed to provide a response correct as to the date of your compliance with the requests for discovery.

2. PRIVILEGE: ff you the responding party maintain that a claim of privilege exists as to any of the discovery requests contained herein, demand is hereby made to fully and completely identify the specific privilege which you are asserting and information and documents withheld with sufficient detail as to enable the Plaintiffs to assess the applicability of the privilege.'

3. AMBIGUITIES: If you allege that any request for discovery contained herein is, in any manner, ambiguous, you are instructed to describe in detail the reasons for your allegations that the request is ambiguous including, but not limited lo, each interpretation which you allege the specific request for discovery is subject to. Further, you arc instructed to respond, to the best of your ability, to this Subpoena Duces Tecum as to each interpretation, which you allege may be given to the discovery request in question.

4. OBJECTIONS: If you the responding party object to any of the discovery requests contained herein, you arc instructed to identify, which specificity, the specific procedural rule(s) or substantive law(s) upon which you base your objection.

5. If the responding party or any of its attorneys, agents or representatives had, at any time, possession or control of a document requested and such document has been lost, destroyed, purged or is not presently in your possession or your control, identify such document and describe the circumstances surrounding the loss, destruction, purge or separation from your possession or control, indicating the dates that such circumstances occurred.

6. TIME PERIOD. ("Relevant Period") For purposes of all requests made herein the relevant time period shall be March IO, 2006 to the present unless specifically slated otherwise.

IL CONDITIONS FOR PRODUCTION

1. PLACE: The items requested are to be produced at the law offices of counsel for Plaintiffs, Lisa Lumley of LISA LUMLEY LA w, located at 5104 Arbor Mill Dr., Fort Worth, TX 76135.

2. COPYING OR PHOTOGRAPHING: The responding party may produce true, correct and legible copies of the documents requested.

3. IDENTIFICATION: Each document will be identified by a statement on a label affixed to the document identifying the paragraph of the request to which it is responsive.

4. ELECTRONIC OR MAGNETIC DATA: Electronic discovery in electronic and magnetic form shall be produced in a .pdf format that is searchable. Those items that cannot

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen H. Feige.

Page 10

be reduced to a .pelf format shall be produced in an Excel format or reduced to paper that may be converted to a .pdf format. Those items that are not .pelf searchable shall be made text searchable using the Optical Character Recognition ("OCR").

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen H. Feige.

Page 11

III. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

DUCES TECUM NO. 1: The J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as of December 3 I, 201 J Bates Labeled H002527 identifies "A/R Officers $697,219." See, J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of December 31, 20JJ Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.

Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect the Villarreals' payment to J. SUZcn·E & CO., INC. of the amount of $767,864 indicated in the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 indicating John and/or Suzelte Villarreal's account payable to the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. as of December 3l,2011.

DUCES TECUM NO. 2: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzetle Villarreal owed J. Suzette & Co., Inc. money as of December 31, 2011 .

DUCES TECUM NO. 3: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villarreal did not owe J. Suzette & Co., Inc. money pursuant to the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011.

DUCES TECUM NO. 4: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villarreal are entitled to any amount of offset from "Officers' accounts receivable [ofl $767,864." See, Feige & Tramp Accountallfs' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 Bates Labeled H002527, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length as Exhibit A-2.

DUCES TECUM NO. 5: Please produce any and all documents reflecting approval by John and/or Suzette Villarreal and/or you for the engagement of Feige & Tramp for Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc.'s Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011.

DUCES TECUM NO. 6: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your agreement with the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Financial as of December 31, 2011.

DUCES TECUM NO. 7: The J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of September 30, 2012 Bates L1belcd H002737 - H002738 identifies "A/R Officers $660,696.59." See, J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738, attached hereto as Exhibit A-I.

Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect John and/or Suzette Villarreal's payment to J. Suzette & Co., Inc. of any part of the $660,696.59 identified on the J. Suzelle & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738.

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take tlze Deposition of Allen H. Feige.

Page 12

DUCES TECUM NO. 8: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villarreal did not owe the .J. Suzette & Co., Inc. the amount of $660,696.59 as identified on the J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738.

DUCES TECUM NO. 9: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement \Vith the .J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 indicating that the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. held an account receivable from John and/or Suzette Villarreal as Officers as is identified on the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates La.beled H002737 - H002738.

DUCES TECUM NO. 10: Please produce any and all statements, deposit records, withdrawal records, transfer records, canceled checks and any and all other documents and financial information and records in your possession or subject to your control relating to the J. Suzette & Co., Inc.

DUCES TECUM NO. 11: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738 indicating "A/R Officers $660 ,696 .5 9"

DUCES TECUM NO. 12: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738 that "A/R Officers $660,696.59" refers to the Villarreals' liability to pay J. Suzette & Co., Inc. for capital that the Villarreals removed from J. Suzette & Co., Inc. that had been invested by the Harvisons.

DUCES TECUM NO. 13: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of December 31, 201 I Bates L1belcd H002527 and its identification of "Officers' accounts receivable [ofl $767,864" as accurately reflecting that as of December 31, 2011 collectively the Villarreals owed the amount of $767,864" to J. Suzette & Co., Inc.

DUCES TECUM NO. 14: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 Bates Labeled H002527 indicating that the Villarreals collectively owed "Officers' accounts receivable !of] $767,864" to J. Suzette & Co., Inc. as of December 31, 2011.

DUCES TECU:M NO. 15: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that the Villarreals disapproved of the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 Bates Labeled H002527 as inaccurately reflecting that the Villarreals collectively owed "Officers' accounts receivable [of! $767,864" to J. Suzette & Co., Inc. as of December 3 J, 201 J.

DUCES TECUM NO. 16: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect the Villarreals are entitled to offset from the amount of

Plaintiffs·' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen EI. Feige.

Page 13

$660,696.59 identified on the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738.

DUCES TECUM NO. 17: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement that the rcige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738 considered and adjusted any offset to which the Villarreals were entitled from the amount of $660,696.59 identified on the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738.

DUCES TECUM NO. 18: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to any bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for John Villarreal and/or Suzette Villarreal (a/k/a Suzette Hohensee) from March 2006 - December 2014 that reflect transactions with or between J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John P. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Suzette L. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Villarreal Consulting LLC, White Oak Performance Horses LLC, Villarreal Renewable Energy Ltd., and any other entities owned by John or Suzette Villarreal.

DUCES TECUM NO. 19: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for White Oak Ranch, LLP from January 2012 - December 2014 that reflect transactions with or between J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John P. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Suzette L. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Villarreal Consulting LLC, White Oak Performance Horses LLC, Villarreal Renewable Energy Ltd., and any other entities owned by John or Suzette Villarreal.

DUCES TECUM NO. 20: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for Villarreal Renewable Energy, Ltd. from April 2009 - December 2014 that reflect transactions with or between J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John P. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Suzette L. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Villarreal Consulting LLC, White Oak Performance Horses LLC, Villarreal Renewable Energy Ltd., and any other entities owned by John or Suzette Villarreal.

DUCES TECUM NO. 21: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for J. Suzette & Company, Inc. from March 2006 - December 2014.

DUCES TECUM NO. 22: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to any QuickBooks file for J. Suzette & Company, Inc. including activity from March I, 2006 through December 31, 2014.

DUCES TECUM N0.23: Produce a list of all usernames and passwords for the QuickBooks file for J. Suzette & Company, Inc. needed to view activity from March 1, 2006 through December 31, 2014.

Plaintiffs·' Notice of Intent to Take the Deposition of Allen I/. Feige.

Page 14

DUCES TECUM NO. 24: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to general ledger detail reports from 2006 through 2014 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

DUCES TECUM NO. 25: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to accounting workpaper files from 2006 through 2014 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

DUCES TECUM NO. 26: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc. tax returns for tax years ended December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2012 through 2014.

DUCES TECUM NO. 27: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Detailed inventory reports from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc

DUCES TECUM NO. 28: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzelte & Company, Inc's. liquidating or sale of inventory from December 31, 2011 to September 30, 20 I 2.

DUCES TECUM NO. 29: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc's. inventory finished goods, work in process and inventory raw material balances reported by J. Suzette & Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2011.

DUCES TECUM NO. 30: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc's. inventory finished goods, work in process and inventory raw material balances reported by J. Suzette & Company, Inc. as of September 30, 2012.

DUCES TECUM NO. 31: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to Detailed depreciation schedules from January 1, 2006 through December 3 I, 2014 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

DUCES TECUM NO. 32: Produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting the disposal of any fixed assets included in the fixed asset balance as of December 31, 201 l and/or acquired between January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012, inclusive.

DUCES TECUM NO. 33: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc.'s disposal of vehicles during 2012.

DUCES TECUM NO. 34:. All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared by Allen H. Feige (the "Expert"), which contain the Expert's factual opinions, observations and supporting information relating lo this Lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 35: All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared

Plaintiffs' Notice of l 11te11t to Take the Deposition of Allen II. Feige.

Page 15

by any other expert and provided lo the Experi in anticipation of the Expert's trial and/or deposition testimony in this Lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 36: All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared by any expert the Expert used for consultation purposes that form the basis either in whole or in part of the Expert's opinions relating to this Lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 37: All documents and correspondence between the Expert and Defendants and/or Defendants' counsel concerning this Lawsuit or the allegations contained therein.

DUCES TECUM NO. 38: All published articles, journals, literature or other authoritative and/or nonauthoritative source that the Expert relied upon (or a listing of same) in forming his opinions in this Lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 39: All reports, writings, or other documents rendered by the Expert relating to this Lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 40: All documents and tangible things used, reviewed, examined, received, and/or consulted by the Expert from any source in connection with the formation and/or rendering of the Expert's opinions in this Lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 41; All documents that suppo1t or upon which the Expert relies to support the Expert's opinions in this lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 42: A list of publications, books, and/or articles written by the Expert that in any way supporl or contradict the Expert's opinions in this L'lwsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 43: A list of all cases (style, cause number and venue) wherein the Expert has provided deposition or trial testimony.

DUCES TECUM NO. 44: A copy of any deposition transcripts of the Expert's testimony in any case that the Expert has in the Expert's possession.

DUCES TECUM NO. 45: A list of all cases (style, cause number and venue) wherein the Expert has provided testimony in court.

DUCES TECUM NO. 46: Documents sufficient to determine the total billings by the Expert for any work in this lawsuit.

DUCES TECUM NO. 47: A list of all cases (style, cause number and venue) wherein the Expert has been retained by any law firm representing the Defendants in this matter.

DUCES TECUM NO. 48: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reveals lhe source of any and all funds that John or Suzette Villarreal paid into J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Take tlze Deposition of Allen If. Feige.

Page 16

DUCES TECUM NO. 49: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reveals the source of any and all funds that John or Suzelte Villarreal used to reduce or pay off any debts owed by J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

DUCES TECUM NO. 50: Please produce any and all books and records of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. in your possession, custody or control.

DUCES TECUM NO. 51: Please produce all correspondence with counsel of J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John Villarreal, or Suzette Villarreal or any of their attorneys or agents.

Plaintiffs' Notice of l11te11t to Take tl1e Deposition of Allen I-I. Feige.

Page 17

CAUSE NO. 348-276014-14 MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company.

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P. VILLARREAL TRUST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSULTING, LLC, WHITE HORSE PERFORMANCE HORSES LLC and, J. SUZETTE & CO., INC.,

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

348rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Defendants. § § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF ALLEN H. FEIGE SUBPEONA DUCES TECUM

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Defendants and files this Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to

Take the Deposition of Allen H. Feige Subpoena Duces Tecum and would respectfully show

unto the Court as follows:

OBJECTIONS TO DUCES TECUM

2. Defendants" means JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P. VILLAR REAL TRUST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSUL TING, LLC, WHITE HORSE PERFORMANCE HORSES, LLC AND J. SUZEITE CO., INC., collectively or individually, and all of their representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys, and all representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys of JOHN VILLARREAL, SUZETTE VILLARREAL, THE JOHN P.

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE I

VILLARREAL TR UST, THE SUZETTE L. VILLARREAL TRUST, VILLARREAL CONSUL TI NG, LLC, WHITE HORSE PERFORMANCE HORSES, LLC AND J. SUZETTE CO., INC., with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum and any entities affiliated with Defendants along with their agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, affiliates of person purporting to act for such affiliates with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to the definition for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to the same for the reason that it fails to state with sufficient particularity the documents or inforn1ation sought. Objection is made to this definition for the reason that the same is vague, ambiguous and unclear as to "affiliates of person purporting to act for such affiliates with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum".

3. "Harvisons" or "Plaintiffs" means MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY, KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited Liability company, collectively or individually, and all of their representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys, and all representatives, employees, agents, officers, directors or attorneys of MIKE HARVISON, HOLLIE HARVISON, HOPE HARVISON ANTHONY , KAY HARVISON PARKER, JOY HARVISON, STACIE HARVISON WOODCOCK, JOHN H. HARVISON, and 7HBF, LTD., by and through its General Partner, 7HBF MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LLC, a Texas limited liability company with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum and any entities affiliated with Defendants along with their agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, affiliates of person purporting to act for such affiliates with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces Tecum.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to the definition for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to the same for the reason that it fails to state with sufficient particularity the documents or information sought. Objection is made to this definition for the reason that the same is vague, ambiguous and unclear as to "affiliates of person purporting to act for such affiliates with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to any matter inquired about in this Subpoena Duces T ecum".

4. "Document" includes any written, repo1ied, recorded, electronic or graphic matter however produced or reproduced, including, but not limited to, written communications, electronic communications, emails, written and electronic spreadsheets, Excel spreadsheets Quickbooks data, accounting data, drawings, designs, manuals, memoranda, reports, financial reports, notes, letters, envelopes, telegrams, messages (including reports, notes and memoranda of telephone conversations and conferences), studies, analyses, books, miicles,

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE 2

magazmes, newspapers, booklets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, papers, arithmetical computations, calendars, date books, minutes of meetings and of all other communications of any type, including intra-office and intra-office communications, purchase orders, questionnaires and surveys, charts, graphs, tapes or recordings, punch cards, magnetic tape, disks, drums, print-outs, data and other data compilations from which infom1ation can be obtained, intra-corporate drafts of the foregoing upon which notations and writings have been made which do not appear on the original, including any copy thereof and any other items described i n the description of "documents" contained i n the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this definition for the reason that the same is overly broad, burdensome and harassing and requires Responding Party to do that which is in excess of what is required of them under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. "Identify," when used in reference to a person, means to state his or her full name and present or last known residential and business address and telephone number. "Identify", when used in referred to a writing or a document, means to state the type of writing or document (e.g. letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, contract or the like) or some other means of identification; its title, if any; a brief description of the document; date it was prepared and executed; and its present location by address and the name of its custodian . If any such writing was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this definition for the reason that the same is overly broad, burdensome and harassing and requires Responding Party to do that which is in excess of what is required of them under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.


I. INSTRUCTIONS

I . TIME: Should you the responding part)' maintain that any of the discovery requests contained herein are ambiguous regarding the ti me frame in which you are to respond, you are instructed to provide a response correct as to the date of your compliance with the requests for discovery.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this instruction for the reason that the same is overly broad, burdensome and harassing and requires Responding Party to do that which is in excess of what is required of them under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. PRIVILEGE: If you the responding party maintain that a claim of privilege exists as to any of the discovery requests contained herein, demand is hereby made to fully and completely identify the specific privilege which you are asserting and information and documents withheld with sufficient detail as to enable the Plaintiffs to assess the applicability of the privilege.


3. AMBIGUITIES: If you allege that any request for discovery contained herein is, in any manner, ambiguous, you are instructed to describe in detail the reasons for your allegations that the request is ambiguous including, but not limited to, each interpretation which you allege the specific request for discovery is subject to. Further, you are instructed to respond , to the best of your ability, to this Subpoena Duces Tecum as to each interpretation, which you allege may be given to the discovery request in question.


4. OBJECTIONS: If you the responding party object to any of the discovery requests contained herein, you are instructed to identify, which specificity, the specific procedural rule(s) or substantive law(s) upon which you base your objection.


5. If the responding party or any of its attorneys, agents or representatives had, at any time, possession or control of a document requested and such document has been lost, destroyed , purged or is not presently in you r possession or your control , identify such document and describe the circumstances surrounding the loss, destruction,

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--!' AGE 4

purge or separation from your possession or control , indicating the dates that such circumstances occurred .


6. TIME PERIOD. ("Relevant Period") For purposes of all requests made herein the relevant ti me period shall be March 10, 2006 to the present unless specifically slated otherwise.

OBJECTION: Objection is made for the reason that the instruction is not limited in time to the relevant period.


II. CONDITIONS FOR PRODUCTION

1. PLACE: The items requested are to be produced at the law offices of counsel for Plaintiffs, Lisa Lumley of LISA LUMLEY LAW, located at 5104 Arbor Mill Dr., Fort Worth, TX 76135.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to the place of production is unreasonable, unduly burdensome and will cause undue expense.

3. IDENTIFICATION: Each document will be identified by a statement on a label affixed to the document identifying the paragraph of the request to which it is responsive.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this condition for the reason that the same is overly broad, burdensome and harassing and requires Responding Party to do that which is in excess of what is required of them under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--!' AGE 6

III. OJBECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

DUCES TECUM NO. 1: The J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as of December 31 , 201 1 Bates Labeled H002527 identifies "AIR Officers $697,219 ."See, J Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of December 3I, 201 I Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.

Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect the Villarreals' payment to J. SUZETTE & CO., INC. of the amount of $767,864 indicated in the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 indicating John and/or Suzette VillatTeal 'saccountpayabletotheJ.Suzette&Co.,Inc. asofDecember31,2011.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 2: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villan-eal owed J. Suzette & Co., Inc. money as of December 31, 2011 .

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas


Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. }vfartin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Infonnation sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 3: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villarreal -did not owe J. Suzette & Co.,, Inc. money pursuant to the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C017J., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive


and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 4: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villarreal are entitled to any amount of offset from "Officers' accounts receivable [of] $767,864." See, Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review <~f J Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 Bates Labeled H002527, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length as Exhibit A-2.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the imp01iance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks infonnation which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 5: Please produce any and all documents reflecting approval by John and/or Suzette Villarreal and/or you for the engagement of Feige & Tramp for Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc.'s Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011.


OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expe1i witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant infom1ation is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery underiaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that sarrie seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America.

DUCES TECUM NO. 6: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your agreement with the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Financial as of December 31 , 2011 .

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery unde1iaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in supp01i of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into


account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America.

DUCES TECUM NO. 7: The J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738 identifies "AIR Officers $660,696.59." See, J Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as qf' September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 -H002738, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.

Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, wntmgs or other tangible evidence that reflect John and/or Suzette Villarreal's payment to J . Suzette & Co., Inc. of any part of the $660,696.59 identified on the J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expe1i witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 8: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting that John and/or Suzette Villarreal did not owe the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. the amount of $660,696.59 as identified on the J. Suzette & Company,

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE l l

Inc. Balance Sheet as September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled I-1002737 -I-1002738.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in suppo1i of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the impo1iance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 9: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J. Suzette & Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 indicating that the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. held an account receivable from John and/or Suzette Villarreal as Officers as is identified on the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 -H002738.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp.,


124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 10: Please produce any and all statements, deposit records, withdrawal records, transfer records, canceled checks and any and all other documents and financial information and records in your possession or subject to your control relating to the J. Suzette & Co., Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. 1\1artin, 776 ~.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C017J., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.


DUCES TECUM NO. 11: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738 indicating ''AIR Officers $660,696.59".

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 12: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738 that "AIR Officers $660,696.59" refers to the VillaiTeals' liability to pay J. Suzette & Co., Inc. for capital that the Villarreals removed from J. Suzette & Co., Inc. that had been invested by the Harvisons.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE I4

Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks infonnation which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 13: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, ·writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with the J . Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of as of December 31, 201 1 Bates Llbeled H002527 and its identification of "Officers' accounts receivable [of] $767,864" as accurately reflecting that as of December 31, 2011 collectively the Villan-eals owed the amount of $767,864" to J. Suzette & Co., Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Jn re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. lvfartin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX Co17J., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks infonnation which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the


discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 14: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement with Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31 , 2011 Bates Labeled H002527 indicating that the Villarreals collectively owed "Officers' accounts receivable [ofj $767,864" to J. Suzette & Co .. Inc. as of December 3L2011. . , .

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Jn re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX C0171., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 15: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that the Villarreals disapproved of the :Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of December 31, 2011 Bates Labeled H002527 as inaccurately reflecting that the VillmTeals collectively owed "Officers' accounts receivable [ofj $767,864" to J. Suzette & Co., Inc. as of December 31, 2011.

DEFENDANTS' 013.JECTlONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE 16

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 16: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, wry tings or other tangible evidence that reflect the Villarreals are entitled to offset from the an1ount of $660,696.59 identified on the J . Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled H002737 - H002738.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lojiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur.


Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that sanie seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 17: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reflect your disagreement that the Feige & Tramp Accountants' Review of J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Financial Statements as of September 30, 2012 Bates Labeled I-1002737 - I-1002738 considered and adjusted any offset to which the Villan-eals were entitled from the amount of $660,696.59 identified on the J. Suzette & Co., Inc. Balance Sheet as ofSeptember30,2012BatesLabeledH002737-H002738.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Jn re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. 1Vfartin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant info1mation is discoverable. Jn re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery unde1iaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DEFENDANTS" OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE 18

DUCES TECUM NO. 18: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to any bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for John Villarreal and/or Suzette Villarreal (a/k/a Suzette Hohensee) from March 2006 - December 2014 that reflect transactions with or between J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John P. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Suzette L. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Villarreal Consulting LLC, White Oak Performance Horses LLC, Villarreal Renewable Energy Ltd., and any other entities owned by John or Suzette Vi 1 larreal .

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same. is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 19: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for White Oak Ranch, LLP fi·om January 2012 - December 2014 that reflect transactions with or between J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John P. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Suzette L. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Villarreal Consulting LLC, White Oak Performance Horses LLC, Villarreal Renewable Energy Ltd., and any other entities owned by John or Suzette Villarreal.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of


the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules matters. matters. of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Infonnation sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco .. Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 20: Please produce any and all documents, repo1is, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for Villarreal Renewable Energy, Ltd. from April 2009 - December 2014 that reflect transactions with or between J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John P. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Suzette L. Villarreal Irrevocable Trust, Villarreal Consulting LLC, White Oak Performance Horses LLC, Villarreal Renewable Energy Ltd., and any other entities owned by John or Suzette Villarreal.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores V. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 s'.w. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Cmp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery unde1iaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in supp01i of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS" MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE 20

obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the impo1iance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period.

DUCES TECUM NO. 21: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, check registers or listings, and wire transfer transaction details for J. Suzette & Company, Inc. from March 2006-December 2014.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Infonnation sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant infonnation is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery underiaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period.


DUCES TECUM NO. 22: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to any QuickBooks file for J . Suzette & Company, Inc. including activity from March 1, 2006 through December 31 ,2014.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Afar/in, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Infom1ation sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, paiiies' resources, the imp01iance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period.

DUCES TECUM NO. 23: Produce a list of all usernames and passwords for the QuickBooks file for J. Suzette & Company, Inc. needed to view activity from March I , 2006 through December 31 , 2014.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. I 989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant inforn1ation is discoverable. In re CSX Cmp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995,


per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period.

DUCES TECUM NO. 24: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to general ledger detail reports from 2006 through 2014 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discove1y regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lojiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery unde1iaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re Alnerican Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request


is not limited in time to the relevant period. Objection is made to this request for the reason that the same is vague, ambiguous and unclear.

DUCES TECUM NO. 25: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to accounting workpaper files from 2006 through 2014 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff1 s right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period.

DUCES TECUM NO. 26: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc. tax retunis for tax years ended December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2012 through 2014.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard


Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. lvfartin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. This request is objectionable for the reason that Plaintiff has not shown that the information sought on the tax returns is needed and/or not obtainable through other means. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period. Objection is made to this request for the reason that the same is vague, ambiguous and unclear as to "for tax years ended December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2012 through 2014".

DUCES TECUM NO. 27: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J . Suzette & Company, Inc. Detailed inventory reports from January 1 , 2012 through December 31, 2012 for J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Jn re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. 1\1artin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to


this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 28: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc.'s., liquidating or sale of inventory from December 31, 2011 to September 30, 2012.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Infcnmation sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, pmiies' resources, the impo1iance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks infonnation which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 29: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc.'s, inventory finished goods, work i n process and inventory raw material balances reported


by J. Suzette & Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2011.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Jn re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX C017J., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in suppo11 of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the imp011ance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff1s right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 30: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc. 's. inventory finished goods, work i n process and inventory raw material balances reported by J. Suzette & Company, Inc. as of September 30, 2012.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of


issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks infonnation which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period.

DUCES TECUM NO. 31: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to Detailed depreciation schedules from January 1 , 2006 through December 31 , 2014 for J . Suzette & Company, Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loflin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." Jn re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. This request is objectionable for the reason that

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTlON FOR CONTINUANCE--PAGE 28

Plaintiff has not shown that the information sought on the tax returns is needed and/or not obtainable through other means.

DUCES TECUM NO. 32: Produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence reflecting the disposal of any fixed assets included in the fixed asset balance as of December 31, 201 1 and/or acquired between January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012, inclusive.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Cmp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintift1s right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 33: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, wntmgs or other tangible evidence that depict or relate to J. Suzette & Company, Inc.'s disposal of vehicles during 2012.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148


(Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering paiiy cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements.

DUCES TECUM NO. 34:. All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared by Allen H. Feige (the "Expert"), which contain the Expert's factual opinions, observations and supporting information relating to this Lawsuit.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lo.ftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering paiiy cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in suppo1i of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the


Constitution of the United States of America a (confidential only). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the same is vague, ambiguous and unclear as to "supporting information relating to this Lawsuit". Subject to and without waiving said objections: Documents responsive to this request have been previously produced by Defendants.

DUCES TECUM NO. 35: All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared by any other expert and provided to the Expert in anticipation of the Expert's trial and/or deposition testimony in this Lawsuit t.

RESPONSE: None.

DUCES TECUM NO. 36: All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared by any expert the Expert used for consultation purposes that form the basis either in whole or in part of the Expert's opinions relating to this Lawsuit.

RESPONSE: None.

DUCES TECUM NO. 37: All documents and correspondence between the Expert and Defendants and/or Defendants' counsel concerning this Lawsuit or the allegations contained therein.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

DUCES TECUM NO. 38: All published articles, journals, literature or other authoritative and/or nonauthoritative source that the Expert relied upon (or a listing of same) in forming his opinions in this Lawsuit.


DUCES TECUM NO. 39: All reports, writings, or other documents rendered by the Expert relating to this Lawsuit.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to the same for the reason that it fails to state with sufficient paiiicularity the documents or information sought. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expe1i witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving said objections: Documents responsive to this request have previously been produced by Defendants.

DUCES TECUM NO. 40: All documents and tangible things used, reviewed, examined , received, and/or consulted by the Expe1i from any source in connection with the formation and/or rendering of the Expe1i's opinions in this Lawsuit.


OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants have previously produced documents responsive to this request. Subject to and without waiving said objections: Documents responsive to this request have previously been produced by Defendants.

DUCES TECUM NO. 41; All documents that supp01i or upon which the Expert relies to support the Expert's opinions in this lawsuit.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expe1i witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving said objections: Documents responsive to this request have previously been produced by Defendants.

DUCES TECUM NO. 42: A list of publications, books, and/or articles written by the Expert that in any way support or contradict the Expert's opinions in this Lawsuit.


DUCES TECUM NO. 43: A list of all cases (style, cause number and venue) wherein the Expert has provided deposition or trial testimony.


DUCES TECUM NO. 44: A copy of any deposition transcripts of the Expert's testimony in any case that the Expert has in the Expert's possession.


DUCES TECUM NO. 45: A list of all cases (style, cause number and venue) wherein the Expert has provided testimony in court.


DUCES TECUM NO. 46: Documents sufficient to determine the total billings by the Expert for any work in this lawsuit.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope


of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

DUCES TECUM NO. 47: A list of all cases (style, cause number and venue) wherein the Expert has been retained by any law firm representing the Defendants in this matter.


DUCES TECUM N0.48: Please produce any and all documents, reports, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reveals the source of any and all funds that John or Suzette Villarreal paid into J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, pmiies' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks infom1ation which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Subject to and without waiving said objections: Documents responsive to this request have previously been produced by Defendants.

DUCES TECUM NO. 49: Please produce any and all documents, rep01is, records, writings or other tangible evidence that reveals the source of any and all funds that John or Suzette Villarreal used to reduce or pay off any debts owed by J. Suzette & Company, Inc.

OBJECTION: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope


of discovery regarding expe1i witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Jn re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Loftin v. iV!artin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX C01p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in suppo1i of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiffs right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. Subject to and without waiving said objections: Documents responsive to this request have previously been produced by Defendants.

DUCES TECUM NO. 50: Please produce any and all books and records of J. Suzette & Company, Inc. in your possession, custody or control.

OBJECTIONS Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discovery regarding expe1i witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lo.fiin v. Martin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Information sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. Jn re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into


account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of admissible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. This request is objectionable for reason that it does not comply with Texas Finance Code requirements. This request is objectionable for the reason that Plaintiff has not shown that the information sought on the tax returns is needed and/or not obtainable through other means.

DUCES TECUM NO. 51: Please produce all correspondence with counsel of J. Suzette & Company, Inc., John Villarreal, or Suzette Villarreal or any of their attorneys or agents.

OBJECTIONS: Objection is made to this request for the reason that it exceeds the scope of discove1y regarding expert witnesses provided for under Rules 194 and 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it is duplicative of the information sought in the Requests for Disclosure. Objection is made to the request for the reason that the same is overly broad. Objection is made to this request because it is no more than a fishing expedition and constitutes undue harassment, and is clearly prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re American Optical, 988 S.W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998); Dillard Dept. Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W. 2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995); Lofiin v. Afartin, 776 S.W. 2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). Infonnation sought must be discoverable and the discovering party cannot conduct a "fishing expedition," nor is marginally relevant information is discoverable. In re CSX Co1p., 124 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex.2003); Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995, per curiam). Discovery undertaken for purpose of finding an issue, rather than in support of issue raised by pleadings, is impermissible "fishing expedition." In re American Home Assur. Co., 88 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding). Objection is made to this request for the reason that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive and/or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the amount in controversy, parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake and the proposed discovery in resolving the issues in this litigation. Objection is made to this request for the reason that it seeks information which does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adni.issible evidence. Objection is made to this request for the reason that same seeks to invade the Plaintiff's right protected by the Constitution of the State of Texas and the Constitution of the United States of America. Objection is made to this request to the extent it seeks to invade confidential matters, proprietary rights and/or a trade secret. Objection is made for the reason that the request is not limited in time to the relevant period. Objection is made for the reason that the request seeks inforn1ation that is not relevant to the subject matter of or limited to the subject matter of the pending action. Objection is made for the reason that the same seeks to invade the attorney-work product privilege protected by Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules


of Civil Procedure or the attorney-client privilege protected by Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.


THE FEIN LAe"™'. P.C~.

By:~~ Eric D. Fein State Bar No. 06879020 efein(?].lfeinlawfirm.com Vickie S. Brandt State Bar No. 24031878 vbrandt(ijlfeinlawfirm.corn 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001

214-522-9596 Telephone 214-522-9599 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS


The undersigned hereby ce1iifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document was forwarded via E-FILE and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, First Class

Mail, Facsimile, and/or Hand Delivery to the attorney for Defendant on this the 15th day of

February, 2017.

Via E-File and E-Mail to: LisawJ,LisaLumleJ::1aw.com. Lisa Lumley · Lisa Lumley Law State Bar No. 13962800 5104 Arbor Mill Drive F01i Worth, Texas 76135 (817) 238-8985 (817) 887-2656 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Eric D. Fein


ER!CD. FEIN MJ:MIJ/:'11 OF 7),XAS~ f/,/./N{JfS, CAUFOEINJA & NDV YORK BAllS

VICKIE S. BRANDT

MHMBHll OF THXAS BAI/

OF COUNSEL:

HILDA HAHN MORALES MEMBl:'R OF TEXAS BAR

DALLAS OFFICE 15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225 Addison, Texas 75001 Tel: (214) 522-9596 Fax: (214) 522-9599

CHICAGO OFFICE 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, lllinois 60606 fel: (3 I 2) 782-3484 r.ax: (312) 782-4279

THE FEIN LA w FIRM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

15455 N. DALLAS PARKWAY, STE.1225 ADDISON, TEXAS 75001

Telephone (214) 522-9596 Facsimile (214) 522-9599

February 11, 2017

Via Email to: [email protected] and First Class Mail Lisa Lumley Lisa Lumley Law 5104 Arbor Mill Drive Ft. W 01ih, Texas 7 613 5

Re: Cause No. 348-276014-14; Mike Harvison, et al. vs. John Villarreal, et al.; In the District Court, 348111 Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Dear Ms. Lumley:

This letter is to address you and your office's continued communication with the Defendant's expert, Allan Feige. Mr. Feige was designated as an expert for the Defendants on November 15, 2016. Since that the time of his designation you or your office has contacted him repeatedly to discuss J. Suzette & Co., Inc., to produce records and to arrange for his deposition, all without my consent or authoHzation in direct violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and State Bar Rules.

Your clients are not the individuals in the entity known as J. Suzette & Co., Inc., rhat are entitled to receive, inspect or request financial records (See Texas Busin:ess Organization Code). Their rights to view corporate records are limited and do not include the right to inspect financial records of the company. Any financial records supplied to your client will be pursuant to a request for production in this case.·

' Do not contact Mr. Feige directly any more. You have scheduled his deposition and that is the only proper method of contact while he is a designate expert in this case. If further direct contact is made by you or your office appropriate sanctions well be sought and other measures that are available will be taken.

If you have any questions, please give us a call.

V~s, /;,HE FEIN Lw FIRM, P.C.

icD~