Preview
CAUSE NO. 2016 54111
WASSAR LOGISTICS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HOLDINGS, LLC
Plaintiff,
MARTIN KROESCHE
Defendant/
Party Plaintiff
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PETER SHAPER, COURTLAND
LOEFLER, GLENN MASSEY,
STEVE SCHONEFELD, GEORGE
DEMPSEY, GENESIS PARK,
JRBS ENTERPRISES, LTD., and
GRISHAM CAPITAL, LLC
Party Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DARYL L. MOORE:
Plaintiff Wassar Logistics Holdings, L.L.C. and Third Party Defendants Peter
Shaper, Courtland Loefler, Glenn Massey, George Dempsey, Genesis Park, JRBS
Enterprises, Ltd., and Grisham Capital, L.L.C. file motion for from
Defendant Martin Kroesche’s and IntervenorPlaintiff Steven Schonefeld’s subpoena to
Cadence Bank, NA (“Cadence”) respectfully show the Court as follows:
ACKGROUND ACTS
Defendant and IntervenorPlaintiff Schonef
a subpoena tecum on Cadence Bank, requiring the production of more than 30
different categories of documents and requiring a deposition on written questions (See
; Ex. A).
Cadence Bank has no relevance to the issues in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Wassar
borrowed funds from Cadence, and Cadence has a security interest in certain assets of
Plaintiff None of these issues are implicated by Kroesche’s or Schonefeld’s claims
Plaintiff or the ThirdParty Defendants.
By conducting a fishing expedition into Cadence’s communications with Wassar
Party Defendants, Kroesche and Schonefeld abusing the discovery process
jeopardizing Plaintiff’s relationship with its lender, harassing and annoying Plaintiff and
Party Defendants to gain a litigation advantage, and grossly invading a host of
personal banking relationships with the individual ThirdParty Defendants and Cadence
Protection from this Court is, therefore, required.
RGUMENT AND UTHORITIES
A person commanded to appear at a deposition . . . to produce and permit
inspection and copying of the designated documents and things, and any other person
affected by the subpoena, may move for a protective order under Rule 192.6(b) . . .
before the time specified for compliance[.]” P. 176.6(e) (emphasis added)
Rule 192.6(b), in turn, states:
To protect the movant from undue burden, unnecessary expense,
harassment, annoyance, or invasion of personal, constitutional, or property
rights, the court may make any order in the interest of justice and may
among other things order that:
the requested discovery not be sought in whole or in part;
the extent or subject matter of discovery be limited;
the discovery not be undertaken at the time or place specified;
the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such
terms and conditionsor at the time and place directed by the court;
the results of discovery be sealed or otherwise protected, subject to
the provisions of
.P.
Because the subpoena is likely to ruin Plaintiff and ThirdParty Defendants’
relationship with Cadence Bank and because the document requests are overbroad,
invasive, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
Wassar and ThirdParty Defendants seek the Court’s protection under Rule
176.6 and Rule 192.6.
UBPOENA OT ALCULATED TO EAD TO HE ISCOVERY OF
DMISSIBLE VIDENCE AND IS ATENT ISHING XPEDITION
Schonefeld subpoena subject Wassar and Party
Defendants undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, and annoyanceDiving
and ThirdParty Defendants’ relationship with Cadence is a massive
invasion of privacy, and invokes every parties’ onfidential, trade secret and proprietary
information
There is no need for such an enormous intrusion. Notwithstanding Kroesche’s and
Schonefeld’s attempts to “cure” their woefully insufficient pleadings, they still plead
without any factual support
Shaper, Loeffler, and Dempsey were officers and directors of Wassar . . .
[they] reach engaged in the following breaches of fiduciary duty to the
company . . . (2) Making misrepresentations to financial institutions and
other third parties regarding Wassar’s financial condition
See Kroesche’s Fifth Amended “Petition”). Simply reciting vague and formulaic
then flatout refusing to amend those allegations in response to special
is clear evidence that Kroesche and Schonefeld legitimate purpose
for subpoenaing Cadence Bank. A party cannot use vague pleadings as an
harass the other parties and their financial institution.
Accordingly, this Court should grant Wasser and Third Party Defendants
protection from Kroesche’s and Schoenfield’s subpoena.
HE UBPOENA IS ASTLY VERBROAD
Kroesche’s and Schonefeld abject fai to plead any factual basis
supporting the legitimacy of their subpoena, the subpoena’s individual document requests
are vastly overbroad Therefore, this Court must grant Wassar and ThirdParty
Defendants protection.
first 10 document requests seek “all” munications and “all”
documents between Cadence and either Wassar or the ThirdParty D efendants without
any limitation
All Communications between Cadance Bank and Wassar Logistics
All Communications between Cadence Bank and Peter Shaper
All Communications between Cadence Bank and Courtland Loeffler
All Communications between Cadence Bank and Greenwell Energy
All Documents transmittedbetween Cadence Bank and Genesis Park
All Documents transmitted between Cadance Bank and Wassar
All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Peter Shaper
All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Courtland
Loeffler
All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Greenwell
Energy
All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Genesis Par
(See Subpoena; Ex.).
There is no plausible reason why Kroesche and Schonefield would need th
documents in this lawsuit. If ThirdParty Defendant Peter Shaper was communicating
with Cadence for a personal loan in 1995, Cadence would be forced to produce that
document based on the vast breadth of these requests. Equally responsive would be any
personal financial statements Third Party Defendants submitted to Cadence
any point in their lives
fect, Defendant is conducting postjudgment, net worth discovery, which is
absolutely prohibited. As set out in the Declaration of Peter Shaper, he along with other
parties in this lawsuit have a long standing banking relationship with Cadence Bank, and
his subpoena directly invades those private financial affairs. (See Declaration of Peter
Shaper; Ex.
Plaintiff suffered enough at the hands of Kroesche and Schonefeld’s frivolous
and vague allegations, and it exhausted its line of credit with Cadence. Wassar’s
relationship with Cadence is fragile, and Kroesche and Schonefeld know that and are
trying to leverage the subpoena to obtain a litigation advantage. Plaintiff cannot suffer
that kind of harm to its reputation and its credit. Therefore, Court grant Wassar
Party Defendants protectionagainst Kroesche and Schonefeld’s subpoena.
ONCLUSION
Plaintiff Party Defendant request grant their
motion for protection, issue a protective order that the requested discovery not be allowed
in whole or in part, and any such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled at
law or in equity.
April , 2017 Respectfully submitted,
MAHENDRU, P.C.
By:
State Bar No. 00796980
Darren A. Braun
State Bar No. 24082267
639 Heights Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77007
Telephone: 713 1519
Facsimile: 713 0776
amahendru@thelitigationgroup.com
dbraun@thelitigationgroup.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF WASSAR
LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, LLC and THIRD
DEFENDANTS PETER SHAPER,
COURTLAND LOEFLER, GLENN
MASSEY, GEORGE DEMPSEY, GENESIS
ENTERPRISES, and
GRISHAM CAPITAL,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
provided to all counsel of record in accordance with the applicable Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure on this day of April
Paul S. Kirklin
HE IRKLIN AW IRM
12600 N. Featherwood Dr., Suite 225
Houston, Texas 77034
Ashish Mahendru
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that I conferred with counsel for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
who stated that he was to the motion and the relief sought herein.
Ashish Mahendru
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2016 54111 WASSAR LOGISTICS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HOLDINGS, LLC Plaintiff, MARTIN KROESCHE Defendant/ Party Plaintiff HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PETER SHAPER, COURTLAND LOEFLER, GLENN MASSEY, STEVE SCHONEFELD, GEORGE DEMPSEY, GENESIS PARK, JRBS ENTERPRISES, LTD., and GRISHAM CAPITAL, LLC Party Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DARYL L. MOORE: Plaintiff Wassar Logistics Holdings, L.L.C. and Third Party Defendants Peter Shaper, Courtland Loefler, Glenn Massey, George Dempsey, Genesis Park, JRBS Enterprises, Ltd., and Grisham Capital, L.L.C. file motion for from Defendant Martin Kroesche’s and IntervenorPlaintiff Steven Schonefeld’s subpoena to Cadence Bank, NA (“Cadence”) respectfully show the Court as follows: ACKGROUND ACTS Defendant and IntervenorPlaintiff Schonef a subpoena tecum on Cadence Bank, requiring the production of more than 30 different categories of documents and requiring a deposition on written questions (See ; Ex. A). Cadence Bank has no relevance to the issues in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Wassar borrowed funds from Cadence, and Cadence has a security interest in certain assets of Plaintiff None of these issues are implicated by Kroesche’s or Schonefeld’s claims Plaintiff or the ThirdParty Defendants. By conducting a fishing expedition into Cadence’s communications with Wassar Party Defendants, Kroesche and Schonefeld abusing the discovery process jeopardizing Plaintiff’s relationship with its lender, harassing and annoying Plaintiff and Party Defendants to gain a litigation advantage, and grossly invading a host of personal banking relationships with the individual ThirdParty Defendants and Cadence Protection from this Court is, therefore, required. RGUMENT AND UTHORITIES A person commanded to appear at a deposition . . . to produce and permit inspection and copying of the designated documents and things, and any other person affected by the subpoena, may move for a protective order under Rule 192.6(b) . . . before the time specified for compliance[.]” P. 176.6(e) (emphasis added) Rule 192.6(b), in turn, states: To protect the movant from undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, or invasion of personal, constitutional, or property rights, the court may make any order in the interest of justice and may among other things order that: the requested discovery not be sought in whole or in part; the extent or subject matter of discovery be limited; the discovery not be undertaken at the time or place specified; the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such terms and conditionsor at the time and place directed by the court; the results of discovery be sealed or otherwise protected, subject to the provisions of .P. Because the subpoena is likely to ruin Plaintiff and ThirdParty Defendants’ relationship with Cadence Bank and because the document requests are overbroad, invasive, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible Wassar and ThirdParty Defendants seek the Court’s protection under Rule 176.6 and Rule 192.6. UBPOENA OT ALCULATED TO EAD TO HE ISCOVERY OF DMISSIBLE VIDENCE AND IS ATENT ISHING XPEDITION Schonefeld subpoena subject Wassar and Party Defendants undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, and annoyanceDiving and ThirdParty Defendants’ relationship with Cadence is a massive invasion of privacy, and invokes every parties’ onfidential, trade secret and proprietary information There is no need for such an enormous intrusion. Notwithstanding Kroesche’s and Schonefeld’s attempts to “cure” their woefully insufficient pleadings, they still plead without any factual support Shaper, Loeffler, and Dempsey were officers and directors of Wassar . . . [they] reach engaged in the following breaches of fiduciary duty to the company . . . (2) Making misrepresentations to financial institutions and other third parties regarding Wassar’s financial condition See Kroesche’s Fifth Amended “Petition”). Simply reciting vague and formulaic then flatout refusing to amend those allegations in response to special is clear evidence that Kroesche and Schonefeld legitimate purpose for subpoenaing Cadence Bank. A party cannot use vague pleadings as an harass the other parties and their financial institution. Accordingly, this Court should grant Wasser and Third Party Defendants protection from Kroesche’s and Schoenfield’s subpoena. HE UBPOENA IS ASTLY VERBROAD Kroesche’s and Schonefeld abject fai to plead any factual basis supporting the legitimacy of their subpoena, the subpoena’s individual document requests are vastly overbroad Therefore, this Court must grant Wassar and ThirdParty Defendants protection. first 10 document requests seek “all” munications and “all” documents between Cadence and either Wassar or the ThirdParty D efendants without any limitation All Communications between Cadance Bank and Wassar Logistics All Communications between Cadence Bank and Peter Shaper All Communications between Cadence Bank and Courtland Loeffler All Communications between Cadence Bank and Greenwell Energy All Documents transmittedbetween Cadence Bank and Genesis Park All Documents transmitted between Cadance Bank and Wassar All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Peter Shaper All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Courtland Loeffler All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Greenwell Energy All Documents transmitted between Cadence Bank and Genesis Par (See Subpoena; Ex.). There is no plausible reason why Kroesche and Schonefield would need th documents in this lawsuit. If ThirdParty Defendant Peter Shaper was communicating with Cadence for a personal loan in 1995, Cadence would be forced to produce that document based on the vast breadth of these requests. Equally responsive would be any personal financial statements Third Party Defendants submitted to Cadence any point in their lives fect, Defendant is conducting postjudgment, net worth discovery, which is absolutely prohibited. As set out in the Declaration of Peter Shaper, he along with other parties in this lawsuit have a long standing banking relationship with Cadence Bank, and his subpoena directly invades those private financial affairs. (See Declaration of Peter Shaper; Ex. Plaintiff suffered enough at the hands of Kroesche and Schonefeld’s frivolous and vague allegations, and it exhausted its line of credit with Cadence. Wassar’s relationship with Cadence is fragile, and Kroesche and Schonefeld know that and are trying to leverage the subpoena to obtain a litigation advantage. Plaintiff cannot suffer that kind of harm to its reputation and its credit. Therefore, Court grant Wassar Party Defendants protectionagainst Kroesche and Schonefeld’s subpoena. ONCLUSION Plaintiff Party Defendant request grant their motion for protection, issue a protective order that the requested discovery not be allowed in whole or in part, and any such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled at law or in equity. April , 2017 Respectfully submitted, MAHENDRU, P.C. By: State Bar No. 00796980 Darren A. Braun State Bar No. 24082267 639 Heights Blvd. Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: 713 1519 Facsimile: 713 0776 amahendru@thelitigationgroup.com dbraun@thelitigationgroup.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF WASSAR LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, LLC and THIRD DEFENDANTS PETER SHAPER, COURTLAND LOEFLER, GLENN MASSEY, GEORGE DEMPSEY, GENESIS ENTERPRISES, and GRISHAM CAPITAL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been provided to all counsel of record in accordance with the applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this day of April Paul S. Kirklin HE IRKLIN AW IRM 12600 N. Featherwood Dr., Suite 225 Houston, Texas 77034 Ashish Mahendru CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that I conferred with counsel for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, who stated that he was to the motion and the relief sought herein. Ashish Mahendru