Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
2/6/2020 1:49PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
CAUSE NO. DC—18-05560 Treva Parker—Ayodele
MARY KAY, INC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, §
§
Defendant/ §
Counter-Plaintiff. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO OUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx (“Defendant” or “xxxxxxx”) and files this Motion to
Quash Deposition Notices and, for cause, would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION NOTICES
This case is set for trial 0n April 20, 2020.
On January 7, 2020, Mary Kay, Inc. (“Plaintiff” 0r “Mary Kay”) filed a Motion for Show
Cause Order, Contempt, and Sanctions (the “Motion for Contempt”). The Court issued an Order
t0 Show Cause 0n January 9, 2020. On January 10, 2020, Defendant authorized her attorneys t0
accept service 0f the Order to Show Cause. The Motion for Contempt is set for hearing on
February 13, 2020.
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020, Plaintiff served two deposition notices for depositions t0
occur 0n Friday, February 7, 2020 outside the state of Texas (the “Deposition Notices”). The
Deposition Notices purport to notice the following depositions: Brie Zamudio for deposition 0n
February 7, 2020 at 9:00 am EST at Regus River Crossing at Keystone, 3815 River Crossing
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 1
Parkway, Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240; and, Hollie Sherrick for deposition on
February 7, 2020 at 2:00 pm CST at Area Wide Reporting, 301 W. White Street, Champaign,
Illinois 61820. True and correct copies 0f the Deposition Notices are attached hereto as Exhibits
“A” and “B” respectively and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Prior to
receipt of the Deposition Notices, Plaintiff never indicated that it needed to, wanted t0, 0r
intended t0 depose any individuals for the hearing on the Motion for Contempt. Nor did Plaintiff
ever inquire of Defendant of her availability for depositions for the hearing on the Motion for
Contempt.
The Deposition Notices patently Violate Rules 191.2, 199.1(b), and 199.2(a) of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant hereby objects t0 the date, time, and place for the
depositions contained in the Deposition Notices. Neither Defendant nor Defendants’ attorneys
are available t0 attend the depositions on February 7, 2020.
Defendant also objects t0 the Deposition Notices because discovery is closed.
II.
THE DEPOSITION NOTICES VIOLATE
DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
Texas courts have long considered contempt proceedings growing out of civil actions
criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. Ex parte Davis, 161 Tex. 561, 344 S.W.2d 153, 155-56
(Tex. 1961); Ex part6 Genecov, 143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 225, 227 (1945); Ex part6 Scott, 133
Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306, 311 (1939). As a result, Texas has extended the full armor of due
process rights t0 the non-indigent accused contemnor because of the criminal nature 0f the
proceeding. See Exparte Green, 603 S.W.2d 216, 218 n. 3 (Tex. 1980).
The right t0 be present at trial and confront witnesses is fundamental and essential to a
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 2
fair trial. Exparte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415, 421 (TeX. 1983) (citing Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S.
400, 405, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L. Ed.2d 923 (1965)). The right is protected under Texas law
by article 1, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. See also TeX. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. § 33.03;
Lusk v. State, 432 S.W.2d 923, 924—25 (Tex. Cr. App. 1968). It isalso protected under the Sixth
Amendment 0f the United States Constitution against state infringement through the due process
clause 0f the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. at 413, 85 S. Ct. at 1073.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right t0 be confronted With the Witnesses against
him...” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Confrontation Clause protects a defendant’s right to
physically face those witnesses who testify against her as well as her right t0 conduct cross-
examination. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51, 107 S.Ct. 989, 998, 94 L.Ed.2d 4O
(1987); Macias v. State, 539 S.W.3d 410, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [lst Dist] 2017, pet. refd).
The Confrontation Clause’s “essential purpose” is
t0 prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits, such as were sometimes admitted in
civil cases, being used against the prisoner in lieu 0f a personal examination and
cross—examination of the Witness in Which the accused has an opportunity, not
only 0f testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the Witness, but 0f
compelling him to stand face t0 face with the jury in order that they may look at
him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives
his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.
Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 641—42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Mattox v. United
States, 156 U.S. 237, 242—43, 15 S. Ct. 337, 339, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895) );Macias, 539 S.W.3d at
421.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 3
The Texarkana Court 0f Appeals held that allowing a witness to testify in disguise,
although physically present in the courtroom violated the Confrontation Clause. Romero v.
State, 136 S.W.3d 680, 688-89 (TeX. App.—Texarkana 2004, affrm’d).
In the instant case, Plaintiff seeks to deny Defendant the right to confront her accusers by
noticing two depositions t0 occur 0n two-day’s notice in two separate states both outside of
Texas. It would be physically impossible for Defendant and her attorneys to attend both
depositions. And Plaintiff’s offer t0 appear telephonically does not allow Defendant to confront
the deponents face-to-face. Accordingly, the Deposition Notices should be quashed with
prejudice.
III.
This Motion to Quash is being filed Within the third business day after service 0f the
Deposition Notices, thus in accordance With Rule 199.4 this motion automatically stays the
depositions until this matter has been ruled upon by the Court.
IV.
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly allow the Court to protect Defendant from
Plaintiff s Deposition Notices:
To protect [a party filing a motion for protection] from undue burden,
unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, 0r invasion 0f personal
constitutional, or property rights, the court may make any order in the interest 0f
justice and may — among other things — order that: (1) the requested discovery not
be sought in whole or in part; (2) the extent 0r subject matter 0f discovery be
limited; (3) the discovery not be undertaken at the time or place specified; [or] (4)
the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such terms and
conditions or at the time and place directed by the Court . .. .
Tex. R. CiV. P. 192.6(b).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 4
Defendant requests entry of a protective order prohibiting the taking of any depositions in
preparation for the hearing on the Motion for Contempt. Defendant also requests entry of a
protective order prohibiting Plaintiff from conducting any third-party discovery Without notice t0
Defendant and outside 0f the discovery period. A11 such discovery efforts by Plaintiff Violate
Defendant’s Constitutional right to due process.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx respectfully
requests that the Court quash the Deposition Notices with prejudice; enter a Protective Order
against conducting discovery outside of the discovery period and in anticipation of the hearing
on the Motion for Contempt; and, for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to
which Defendant may be justly entitled.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 5
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary D. Wilson
Gary D. Wilson*
Florida Bar No. 0846406
gwilson@wilsonmccoylaw.com
WILSON MCCOY, P.A.
Point 100 Building
100 E. Sybelia Avenue, Suite 205
Maitland, Florida 32751
(407) 803-5400 (Telephone)
(407) 803-4617 (Telecopier)
*
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
and
/s/ Ryan K. Lurich
Ryan K. Lurich
State Bar N0. 24013070
r1urich@fflawoffice.com
FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP
5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75254
(972) 788-1400 (Telephone)
(972) 788-2667 (Telecopier)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
xxxxx CRUISE xxxxxxx
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy 0f this pleading has been served on
all counsel of record 0n this the 6th day 0f February, 2020, in accordance With the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Christopher J. Schwegmann, Esq.
Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 981-3800 (Telephone)
(214) 981-3839 (Telecopier)
/s/Ryan K. Lurich
Ryan K. Lurich
#898997
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 1
EXHIBIT
CAUSE NO. DC-18—05560
MARY KAY INC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, g
v. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, g
Defendant. g 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF BRIE ZAMUDIO
T0: Defendant xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, by and through her attorneys of record.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Mary Kay Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its
attorneys, will take the deposition ofBrie Zamudio, commencing on February 7, 2020, at 9:00 am.
Eastern Standard Time, at the Regus River Crossing at Keystone, 3815 River Crossing Parkway,
Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240, and will continue from day t0 day until completed.
The deposition will be taken before a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public, or other
Officer duly authorized t0 administer oaths and may be videotaped. You are invited t0 attend and
cross-examine the witness. In the event you cannot attend in-person, a dial-in can be provided so
that you may join telephonically.
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0F BRIE ZAMUDIO PAGE 1
Dated: February 4,2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher J. Schwezmann
Christopher J. Schwegmann
Texas Bar No. 25051315
cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
Jared D. Eisenberg
Texas Bar No. 24092382
jeisenberg@lynnllp.com
LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214-981-3800
Facsimile: 214-981-3839
JillHerz
Texas Bar No. 00785930
service@jillherz.com
ATTORNEY AT LAW
430 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: 214—745-4567
Facsimile: 214-745-1 156
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
MARY KAY INC.
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record
via electronic mail 0n February 4, 2020:
Via Electronic Mail:
Gary Wilson Ryan K. Lurich
gwilson@wilsonmccoylaw.com rlurich@fflawoffice.com
WILSON MCCOY, P.A. FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP
Point 100 Building 5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
100 E. Sybelia Ave., Suite 205 Dallas, Texas 75254
Maitland, Florida 32751
/S/Jared Eisenberg
Jared Eisenberg
4326-0877—5796,
v. 1
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0F BRIE ZAMUDIO PAGE 2
CAUSE NO. DC-18-05560
MARY KAY INC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 0F
Plaintiff, g
v. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, g
Defendant. g 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION 0F HOLLIE SHERRICK
TO: Defendant xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, by and through her attorneys 0f record.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Mary Kay Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its
attorneys, will take the deposition of Hollie Sherrick, commencing on February 7, 2020, at 2:00
p.m., Central Standard Time, at the Area Wide Reporting, 301 W. White Street, Champaign,
Illinois 61820, and will continue from day t0 clay until completed.
The deposition will be taken before a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public, 0r other
officer duly authorized t0 administer oaths and may be videotaped. You are invited t0 attend and
cross examine the witness. In the event you cannot attend in—person, a diaI-in can be provided so
that you may join telephonically.
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF HOLLIE SHERRICK PAGE l
Dated: February 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Christopher J. Schwegmarm
Christopher J. Schwegmann
Texas Bar No. 25051315
cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
Jared D. Eisenberg
Texas Bar No. 24092382
jeisenberg@lynnllp.com
LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214-981-3800
Facsimile: 214-981-3839
JillHerz
Texas Bar N0. 00785930
service@jillherz.com
ATTORNEY AT LAW
430 Founders Square
900 Jackson Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: 214-745-4567
Facsimile: 214-745-1 156
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
MARY KAY INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record
via electronic mail on February 4, 2020:
Via Electronic Mail:
Gary Wilson Ryan K. Lurich
gwilson@wilsonmccoylaw.com rlurich@fflawoffice.com
WILSON MCCOY, PA. FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP
Point 100 Building 5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
100 E. Sybelia Ave., Suite 205 Dallas, Texas 75254
Maitland, Florida 32751
/S/ Jared Eisenberz
Jared Eisenberg
4826-0877-5796,
v. ]
NOTICE 0F DEPOSITION OF HOLLIE SHERRICK PAGE 2
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 2/6/2020 1:49PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. DC—18-05560 Treva Parker—Ayodele MARY KAY, INC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, § § Defendant/ § Counter-Plaintiff. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO OUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx (“Defendant” or “xxxxxxx”) and files this Motion to Quash Deposition Notices and, for cause, would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION NOTICES This case is set for trial 0n April 20, 2020. On January 7, 2020, Mary Kay, Inc. (“Plaintiff” 0r “Mary Kay”) filed a Motion for Show Cause Order, Contempt, and Sanctions (the “Motion for Contempt”). The Court issued an Order t0 Show Cause 0n January 9, 2020. On January 10, 2020, Defendant authorized her attorneys t0 accept service 0f the Order to Show Cause. The Motion for Contempt is set for hearing on February 13, 2020. On Tuesday, February 4, 2020, Plaintiff served two deposition notices for depositions t0 occur 0n Friday, February 7, 2020 outside the state of Texas (the “Deposition Notices”). The Deposition Notices purport to notice the following depositions: Brie Zamudio for deposition 0n February 7, 2020 at 9:00 am EST at Regus River Crossing at Keystone, 3815 River Crossing DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 1 Parkway, Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240; and, Hollie Sherrick for deposition on February 7, 2020 at 2:00 pm CST at Area Wide Reporting, 301 W. White Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820. True and correct copies 0f the Deposition Notices are attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Prior to receipt of the Deposition Notices, Plaintiff never indicated that it needed to, wanted t0, 0r intended t0 depose any individuals for the hearing on the Motion for Contempt. Nor did Plaintiff ever inquire of Defendant of her availability for depositions for the hearing on the Motion for Contempt. The Deposition Notices patently Violate Rules 191.2, 199.1(b), and 199.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant hereby objects t0 the date, time, and place for the depositions contained in the Deposition Notices. Neither Defendant nor Defendants’ attorneys are available t0 attend the depositions on February 7, 2020. Defendant also objects t0 the Deposition Notices because discovery is closed. II. THE DEPOSITION NOTICES VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT Texas courts have long considered contempt proceedings growing out of civil actions criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. Ex parte Davis, 161 Tex. 561, 344 S.W.2d 153, 155-56 (Tex. 1961); Ex part6 Genecov, 143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 225, 227 (1945); Ex part6 Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306, 311 (1939). As a result, Texas has extended the full armor of due process rights t0 the non-indigent accused contemnor because of the criminal nature 0f the proceeding. See Exparte Green, 603 S.W.2d 216, 218 n. 3 (Tex. 1980). The right t0 be present at trial and confront witnesses is fundamental and essential to a DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 2 fair trial. Exparte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415, 421 (TeX. 1983) (citing Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L. Ed.2d 923 (1965)). The right is protected under Texas law by article 1, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. See also TeX. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. § 33.03; Lusk v. State, 432 S.W.2d 923, 924—25 (Tex. Cr. App. 1968). It isalso protected under the Sixth Amendment 0f the United States Constitution against state infringement through the due process clause 0f the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. at 413, 85 S. Ct. at 1073. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right t0 be confronted With the Witnesses against him...” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Confrontation Clause protects a defendant’s right to physically face those witnesses who testify against her as well as her right t0 conduct cross- examination. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51, 107 S.Ct. 989, 998, 94 L.Ed.2d 4O (1987); Macias v. State, 539 S.W.3d 410, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [lst Dist] 2017, pet. refd). The Confrontation Clause’s “essential purpose” is t0 prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits, such as were sometimes admitted in civil cases, being used against the prisoner in lieu 0f a personal examination and cross—examination of the Witness in Which the accused has an opportunity, not only 0f testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the Witness, but 0f compelling him to stand face t0 face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief. Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 641—42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242—43, 15 S. Ct. 337, 339, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895) );Macias, 539 S.W.3d at 421. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 3 The Texarkana Court 0f Appeals held that allowing a witness to testify in disguise, although physically present in the courtroom violated the Confrontation Clause. Romero v. State, 136 S.W.3d 680, 688-89 (TeX. App.—Texarkana 2004, affrm’d). In the instant case, Plaintiff seeks to deny Defendant the right to confront her accusers by noticing two depositions t0 occur 0n two-day’s notice in two separate states both outside of Texas. It would be physically impossible for Defendant and her attorneys to attend both depositions. And Plaintiff’s offer t0 appear telephonically does not allow Defendant to confront the deponents face-to-face. Accordingly, the Deposition Notices should be quashed with prejudice. III. This Motion to Quash is being filed Within the third business day after service 0f the Deposition Notices, thus in accordance With Rule 199.4 this motion automatically stays the depositions until this matter has been ruled upon by the Court. IV. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly allow the Court to protect Defendant from Plaintiff s Deposition Notices: To protect [a party filing a motion for protection] from undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, 0r invasion 0f personal constitutional, or property rights, the court may make any order in the interest 0f justice and may — among other things — order that: (1) the requested discovery not be sought in whole or in part; (2) the extent 0r subject matter 0f discovery be limited; (3) the discovery not be undertaken at the time or place specified; [or] (4) the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such terms and conditions or at the time and place directed by the Court . .. . Tex. R. CiV. P. 192.6(b). DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 4 Defendant requests entry of a protective order prohibiting the taking of any depositions in preparation for the hearing on the Motion for Contempt. Defendant also requests entry of a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff from conducting any third-party discovery Without notice t0 Defendant and outside 0f the discovery period. A11 such discovery efforts by Plaintiff Violate Defendant’s Constitutional right to due process. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx respectfully requests that the Court quash the Deposition Notices with prejudice; enter a Protective Order against conducting discovery outside of the discovery period and in anticipation of the hearing on the Motion for Contempt; and, for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Defendant may be justly entitled. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 5 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gary D. Wilson Gary D. Wilson* Florida Bar No. 0846406 gwilson@wilsonmccoylaw.com WILSON MCCOY, P.A. Point 100 Building 100 E. Sybelia Avenue, Suite 205 Maitland, Florida 32751 (407) 803-5400 (Telephone) (407) 803-4617 (Telecopier) * Admitted Pro Hac Vice and /s/ Ryan K. Lurich Ryan K. Lurich State Bar N0. 24013070 r1urich@fflawoffice.com FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP 5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75254 (972) 788-1400 (Telephone) (972) 788-2667 (Telecopier) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT xxxxx CRUISE xxxxxxx DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy 0f this pleading has been served on all counsel of record 0n this the 6th day 0f February, 2020, in accordance With the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Christopher J. Schwegmann, Esq. Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 981-3800 (Telephone) (214) 981-3839 (Telecopier) /s/Ryan K. Lurich Ryan K. Lurich #898997 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES PAGE 1 EXHIBIT CAUSE NO. DC-18—05560 MARY KAY INC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, g v. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, g Defendant. g 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BRIE ZAMUDIO T0: Defendant xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, by and through her attorneys of record. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Mary Kay Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, will take the deposition ofBrie Zamudio, commencing on February 7, 2020, at 9:00 am. Eastern Standard Time, at the Regus River Crossing at Keystone, 3815 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240, and will continue from day t0 day until completed. The deposition will be taken before a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public, or other Officer duly authorized t0 administer oaths and may be videotaped. You are invited t0 attend and cross-examine the witness. In the event you cannot attend in-person, a dial-in can be provided so that you may join telephonically. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0F BRIE ZAMUDIO PAGE 1 Dated: February 4,2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher J. Schwezmann Christopher J. Schwegmann Texas Bar No. 25051315 cschwegmann@lynnllp.com Jared D. Eisenberg Texas Bar No. 24092382 jeisenberg@lynnllp.com LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-981-3800 Facsimile: 214-981-3839 JillHerz Texas Bar No. 00785930 service@jillherz.com ATTORNEY AT LAW 430 Founders Square 900 Jackson Street Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: 214—745-4567 Facsimile: 214-745-1 156 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MARY KAY INC. CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via electronic mail 0n February 4, 2020: Via Electronic Mail: Gary Wilson Ryan K. Lurich gwilson@wilsonmccoylaw.com rlurich@fflawoffice.com WILSON MCCOY, P.A. FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP Point 100 Building 5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200 100 E. Sybelia Ave., Suite 205 Dallas, Texas 75254 Maitland, Florida 32751 /S/Jared Eisenberg Jared Eisenberg 4326-0877—5796, v. 1 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0F BRIE ZAMUDIO PAGE 2 CAUSE NO. DC-18-05560 MARY KAY INC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 0F Plaintiff, g v. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, g Defendant. g 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION 0F HOLLIE SHERRICK TO: Defendant xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, by and through her attorneys 0f record. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Mary Kay Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, will take the deposition of Hollie Sherrick, commencing on February 7, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, at the Area Wide Reporting, 301 W. White Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, and will continue from day t0 clay until completed. The deposition will be taken before a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public, 0r other officer duly authorized t0 administer oaths and may be videotaped. You are invited t0 attend and cross examine the witness. In the event you cannot attend in—person, a diaI-in can be provided so that you may join telephonically. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF HOLLIE SHERRICK PAGE l Dated: February 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/Christopher J. Schwegmarm Christopher J. Schwegmann Texas Bar No. 25051315 cschwegmann@lynnllp.com Jared D. Eisenberg Texas Bar No. 24092382 jeisenberg@lynnllp.com LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-981-3800 Facsimile: 214-981-3839 JillHerz Texas Bar N0. 00785930 service@jillherz.com ATTORNEY AT LAW 430 Founders Square 900 Jackson Street Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: 214-745-4567 Facsimile: 214-745-1 156 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MARY KAY INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via electronic mail on February 4, 2020: Via Electronic Mail: Gary Wilson Ryan K. Lurich gwilson@wilsonmccoylaw.com rlurich@fflawoffice.com WILSON MCCOY, PA. FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP Point 100 Building 5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200 100 E. Sybelia Ave., Suite 205 Dallas, Texas 75254 Maitland, Florida 32751 /S/ Jared Eisenberz Jared Eisenberg 4826-0877-5796, v. ] NOTICE 0F DEPOSITION OF HOLLIE SHERRICK PAGE 2