Preview
e oe.
Lg bay ML te
IN THE pistaIae RT OF
CAUSE NO. 04-01100-M
CRAIG DYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DYER CUSTOM INSTALLATION, INC.
(DCI) JOSEPH GEETING, and SUSAN
§
§
§
§ .
§ NN
§ 298" JUDICIAL ane
§
§
LAMBERT. §
§
§
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
COMES NOW, Craig Dyer, Plaintiff, and makes and files this Motion to Quash the
State of Texas Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mitchell Madden and would respectfully show
unto the court as follows:
I.
GROUNDS FOR MOTION
On Friday, August 11, 2006 after 5:00 p.m. counsel for Plaintiff was served with the
State of Texas Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mitchell Madden, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference as though set forth
herein at length. This Motion was filed within three days of receipt of such Notice of
Deposition and therefore is timely. Movant would show as grounds for quashing this notice
as follows:
1. As this court is aware from prior motions and discovery disputes, the
Deponent is counsel of record for the Plaintiff in this case and has been since its original
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 1filing now in excess of 2 years ago. The Plaintiff would show that based upon the claims
and allegations made by the Defendant, in its pleadings and in prior hearings regarding
these issues, the claim or allegations to which the Deponent would have knowledge of
relevant facts, all involve either attorney/client communications, the representation of a
client or the conduct of their litigation. In that regard, the Plaintiff would show that Plaintiffs
claims, although variously named, in essence constitute a challenge to Plaintiff's counsel
capacity in this case and seeks to show that the litigation is the cause of damage to DCI.'
Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that the deposition sought does not seek relevant
testimony nor is it likely to lead to the admissibility of evidence in and to a viable claim of
the Defendants or alternatively, any discovery, over facts which are not in dispute, which
may be relevant or germane to a claim involving the Plaintiff in this case, can be obtained
by its intrusive means. Accordingly, the Plaintiff objects to the deposition as noticed and
seeks a protective order limiting the discovery to issues germane to a viable claim pending
in the litigation and compelling Defendants to first attempt to obtain the discoverable
information they week by less intrusive means.
2. This deposition was noticed for a date and time that Mr. Madden was
unavailable. Mr. Madden is lead counsel in Cause No. DV02-11233-D; Transcontinental
Realty Investors, Inc. v. St. Louis One City Centre, Ltd., 20/20 Management Company,
Inc. and One City Centre Investments, LLC pending in the 160" District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and has scheduled court ordered depositions set for Friday, August 18" for
a trial that is set for the week of September 11, 2006.
‘In essence a malicious prosecution suit without any allegation of special injury.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 2Subject to the above, Plaintiff counsel can present Mr. Madden for his deposition
at an agreeable date, place and time after September 5, 2006 at the offices of Mitchell
Madden located at 1755 Wittington Place, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75234.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant this
Motion to Quash and for such other and further relief at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff
can show himself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
State Bar No. 15150800
1750 Valley View Lane, Suite 120
Dallas, Texas 75234
(970) 481-3838 Telephone
(214) 393-4015 Facsimile
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| hereby certify that the foregoing document was duly served upon the following
counsel of record via facsimile transmission and certified mail, return receipt requested on
August 15, 2006:
Matthew A. Nowak
Nowak & Stauch
4144 N. Central Expressway, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 741-4717 - fax
Kénneth F.Aye
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 3CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This will confirm that on the 15" day of August, 2006, the undersigned held a
teleconference with Matthew Nowak, counsel for Defendants, regarding the relief
requested. Mr. Nowak indicated that he was opposed. Accordingly, this motion is
presented to the court for consideration.
Kenneth F. Nye
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 408/1142006 17:04 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP 004/008
CAUSE NO. 04-01100-M
CRAIG DYER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. §
§ 298™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DYER CUSTOM INSTALLATION, INC. §
(DCN, JOSEPH GEETING, §
SUSAN LAMBERT, RICHARD GEETING §
and LAURI GEETING, §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
To: Mitchell Madden, Esq., Law Offices of Mitchell Madden, 1800 Valley View
Lane, Suite 120, Dailas, Texas 75234.
Greetings:
YOU ARE COMMANDED TO appear August 18, 2006, at 3:01) p.m. at the offices of
Nowak & Stauch, LLP, located at 4144 N. Central Expressway, Suite 30C, Dallas, Texas 75264,
. Produce the documents described in attached Exhibit “A,” and give testimony at a deposition in
the case of Craig Dyer v. Dyer Custom Installation, Inc., et al., cause no. 04-01100-M, currently
pending before the 298“ Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. }’ou must remain at the
place of the deposition from day to day until discharged by the party summoning the witness.
FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE TREATED AS A CONTEMPT
OF COURT. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176.8(a) PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS: Failure by auy person without adequate excuse to obcy a snbpoena served
upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is
issued or a district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may e
punished by fine or confinement, or both.
This subpoena is issued at the request of Dyer Custom Installation, Inc. and Josesh
Geeting, whose attorney of record is Matthew A Nowak.
EXHIBIT
1A
=— eee OE EE cn
THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page lofS08/11/2006 17 04 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP @ 005/008
Date of Issuance: August , 2006.
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ducument was served in
accordance with TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 21 and 21a o2 all parties to this case
via facsimile and certified mail, return receipt requested on this the 11" oy of August 2006.
ca
J D. Thomas
MEMORANDUM OF ACCEPTANCE
I accepted service of a copy of this subpoena on day of 200€.
Mitchell Madden
OF SUBPOENA
\ certify that I served the attached subpoena by delivering a copy and the required fee of
$10.00 to Mitchell Madden in person, at 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 120, Dallas, Texas 752.34
on August , 2006 at___: am/p.m. My fee for this service has been paid in
advance. .
[printed name]
[tit.e]
THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCBELL MADDEN Page 20£508/11/2006 17 04 FAX 2148232007
NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP
006/008
EXHIBIT A”
DEFINITIONS
_a) "You" and “your” refers to Mitchell Madden.
b) "Plaintiff" refers to Craig Dyer.
c) “DCI” refers to defendant Dyer Custom Installation, Inc.
d) As used herein, "document" and “documents” shall mean any document, thing, or other
tangible medium of storage, including, but not limited to, writings, printed material,
photographs, videotapes, computer data, in its pative format, and audio recordings of
every kind, in Your possession, custody, or control, or known by You to ex'st,
irrespective of whether the document is one intended for or transmitted internally by You,
or intended for or transmitted to any other person or entity, including without limitation
any government agency, department, administrative entity, or personnel. It shall include
communications in words, symbols, pictures, sound recordings, films, tapes, and
information stored in, or accessible through, computer or other information storage or
retrieval systems, together with the codes and/or programming instructions and other
materials necessary to understand and use such systems. For purposes of illustration and
not limitation, the terms shall include: correspondence; transcripts of testimony; letters;
notes, reports; papers; files; books; records; contracts; agreements; telegrams; teletypes
and other communications sent or received; diaries; calendars; logs, notes, or mevaorar.da
of telephonic or face-to-face conversations; drafts; workpapers,; agendas; bulletiss;
notices; circulars; announcements; instructions; schedules; minutes, summaries, notes,
and other records and recordings of any conferences, meetings, visits, statements, and
other records, obligations and expenditures; canceled checks, vouchers, receipts, end
other records of payment; ledgers; journals, balance sheets, provit and loss statements,
and other sources of financial data; analyses; statements; intervi:ws; affidavits; prinved
matter (including published books, articles, speeches, and newspaper clippings), pn-ss ~
releases; charts; drawings; specifications; manuals; brochures; parts lists; memoranda of
all kind to and from any persons, agencies, or entities; technical and engineering reports,
evaluations, advice, recommendations, commentaries, conclusions, studies, test plans,
manuals, procedures, data, reports, results and conclusions; records of administrative,
technical and financial actions, taken or recommended; title documents, such as deeds,
leases, assignments, and liens, and all other writings the conteats of which relatc to,
discuss, consider, or otherwise refer to the subject matter of the particular discovery
requested.
e) "Person" and “persons” shall include natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations,
joint ventures, and corporations.
THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page 3 af 5aq)
2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
08/11/2006 17:04 FAX
2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP
INSTRUCTIONS
Copying: The requesting party agrees to payment of reasonable costs for reproduction or
copying as provided by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Extensions of Time: Any agreement for extension of time to respond to these Requests
for Production must be in writing.
Lost or Destroyed Documents: If any requested document has been lost or destroyed,
for each such document state the circumstances relating to the loss or destruction of such
document, the approximate date of the loss or destruction and a reasonably complete
description of the contents of such document.
Identify: In those instances where the word "identity," is used in these requests for
discovery, it should be interpreted as requiring with respect to individuals, the perscn's
name, last known address and telephone number. With respect to documents or things, it
should be interpreted requiring sufficient information regarding the item so that the party
seeking discovery can locate and identify the object as readily as the party from whom it
is being sought.
Computer Based Information: In those instances where requested information is stored
only on software or other data compilations, the responding part’ should either produce
the raw data along with all codes and programs for translating it into usable form or
produce the information in a finished usable form, which would include all necessary
glossaries, keys and indices for interpretation of the material.
Document Destruction: It is requested that all documents and/or other data
compilations which might impact on the subject matter of this litization be preserved and
that any ongoing process of document destruction involving such documents cease
immediately.
DOCUME THINGS REQUESTED
Any and all documents evidencing or relating to all agreements between You and
Plaintiff.
A copy of all agreements between You and Plaintiff regardiag the funding anc/or
formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC.
A copy of any document evidencing an agreement between You and Plaintiff regarding
the funding and/or formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC.
All correspondence between You and Plaintiff conceming the funding and/or formation
of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC.
All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding DCI.
THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page dof §
@oo7soog08/11/2008 17°64 FAX 2148232007
NOWAK and STAUCH, LLP
008/008
6. All correspondence between You atid Plaintiff regarding the business of appliance
installation from September 2003 through July 2004.
7. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding customer: of DCI.
8. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding employees of DCI.
9. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding work: to be performed >y
Plaintiff on Your residence located at 6218 Raintree Court, Dallas, Texas.
10. All correspondence between You and any person not a party to this lawsuit regardiog
DCI, Plaintiff, the appliance installation business, or DCI’s customers.
11. All documents relating to the work performed by Plaintiff on Your residence located at
6218 Raintree Court, Dallas, Texas.
12. Copies of all checks written by You to Plaintiff between September 2003 through July
2004,
13. All documents evidencing receipts for payments made by You to Plaintiff between
September 2003 through July 2004.
14. Ali documents evidencing loans made by You, or by a company for which you are an
officer or director, to Plaintiff or a company for which Plaintiff is aa officer or director.
15. All documents evidencing proposals made by Plaintiff to You proposing the start of a
business that provides appliance installation services.
16. A copy of any fee agreement between You and Plaintiff.
17. A copy of any documents evidencing or referencing the formaticn of Dyer Mechanical
Services, LLC.
18. . All documents evidencing notes, diaries, or calendars regarding conversations with
Plaintiff that concemed starting a business offering appliance installation services.
19. All documents evidencing notes, diaries, or calendars regarding conversations wrth
Plaintiff that concemed the formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC.
THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page Sof Say
e i
P 972.484.7780
MEMBER: TANAS@ IDAHO BARS
~ Madden | Sewell
ROARD CERTIFIED, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW’ 7 972.484.7743
TEXAS BOARD OF LECAL SPECIALIZATION Four Hickory Centre F / L E madden @maddensewell.com
1755 Wittington Place, el -
Dallas, Texas 75234
Preview
e oe. Lg bay ML te IN THE pistaIae RT OF CAUSE NO. 04-01100-M CRAIG DYER, Plaintiff, v. DYER CUSTOM INSTALLATION, INC. (DCI) JOSEPH GEETING, and SUSAN § § § § . § NN § 298" JUDICIAL ane § § LAMBERT. § § § Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW, Craig Dyer, Plaintiff, and makes and files this Motion to Quash the State of Texas Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mitchell Madden and would respectfully show unto the court as follows: I. GROUNDS FOR MOTION On Friday, August 11, 2006 after 5:00 p.m. counsel for Plaintiff was served with the State of Texas Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mitchell Madden, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference as though set forth herein at length. This Motion was filed within three days of receipt of such Notice of Deposition and therefore is timely. Movant would show as grounds for quashing this notice as follows: 1. As this court is aware from prior motions and discovery disputes, the Deponent is counsel of record for the Plaintiff in this case and has been since its original PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 1filing now in excess of 2 years ago. The Plaintiff would show that based upon the claims and allegations made by the Defendant, in its pleadings and in prior hearings regarding these issues, the claim or allegations to which the Deponent would have knowledge of relevant facts, all involve either attorney/client communications, the representation of a client or the conduct of their litigation. In that regard, the Plaintiff would show that Plaintiffs claims, although variously named, in essence constitute a challenge to Plaintiff's counsel capacity in this case and seeks to show that the litigation is the cause of damage to DCI.' Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that the deposition sought does not seek relevant testimony nor is it likely to lead to the admissibility of evidence in and to a viable claim of the Defendants or alternatively, any discovery, over facts which are not in dispute, which may be relevant or germane to a claim involving the Plaintiff in this case, can be obtained by its intrusive means. Accordingly, the Plaintiff objects to the deposition as noticed and seeks a protective order limiting the discovery to issues germane to a viable claim pending in the litigation and compelling Defendants to first attempt to obtain the discoverable information they week by less intrusive means. 2. This deposition was noticed for a date and time that Mr. Madden was unavailable. Mr. Madden is lead counsel in Cause No. DV02-11233-D; Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. v. St. Louis One City Centre, Ltd., 20/20 Management Company, Inc. and One City Centre Investments, LLC pending in the 160" District Court of Dallas County, Texas and has scheduled court ordered depositions set for Friday, August 18" for a trial that is set for the week of September 11, 2006. ‘In essence a malicious prosecution suit without any allegation of special injury. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 2Subject to the above, Plaintiff counsel can present Mr. Madden for his deposition at an agreeable date, place and time after September 5, 2006 at the offices of Mitchell Madden located at 1755 Wittington Place, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75234. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant this Motion to Quash and for such other and further relief at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff can show himself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, State Bar No. 15150800 1750 Valley View Lane, Suite 120 Dallas, Texas 75234 (970) 481-3838 Telephone (214) 393-4015 Facsimile ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that the foregoing document was duly served upon the following counsel of record via facsimile transmission and certified mail, return receipt requested on August 15, 2006: Matthew A. Nowak Nowak & Stauch 4144 N. Central Expressway, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 741-4717 - fax Kénneth F.Aye PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 3CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE This will confirm that on the 15" day of August, 2006, the undersigned held a teleconference with Matthew Nowak, counsel for Defendants, regarding the relief requested. Mr. Nowak indicated that he was opposed. Accordingly, this motion is presented to the court for consideration. Kenneth F. Nye PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 408/1142006 17:04 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP 004/008 CAUSE NO. 04-01100-M CRAIG DYER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § 298™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT DYER CUSTOM INSTALLATION, INC. § (DCN, JOSEPH GEETING, § SUSAN LAMBERT, RICHARD GEETING § and LAURI GEETING, § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM To: Mitchell Madden, Esq., Law Offices of Mitchell Madden, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 120, Dailas, Texas 75234. Greetings: YOU ARE COMMANDED TO appear August 18, 2006, at 3:01) p.m. at the offices of Nowak & Stauch, LLP, located at 4144 N. Central Expressway, Suite 30C, Dallas, Texas 75264, . Produce the documents described in attached Exhibit “A,” and give testimony at a deposition in the case of Craig Dyer v. Dyer Custom Installation, Inc., et al., cause no. 04-01100-M, currently pending before the 298“ Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. }’ou must remain at the place of the deposition from day to day until discharged by the party summoning the witness. FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE TREATED AS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176.8(a) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: Failure by auy person without adequate excuse to obcy a snbpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued or a district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may e punished by fine or confinement, or both. This subpoena is issued at the request of Dyer Custom Installation, Inc. and Josesh Geeting, whose attorney of record is Matthew A Nowak. EXHIBIT 1A =— eee OE EE cn THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page lofS08/11/2006 17 04 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP @ 005/008 Date of Issuance: August , 2006. I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ducument was served in accordance with TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 21 and 21a o2 all parties to this case via facsimile and certified mail, return receipt requested on this the 11" oy of August 2006. ca J D. Thomas MEMORANDUM OF ACCEPTANCE I accepted service of a copy of this subpoena on day of 200€. Mitchell Madden OF SUBPOENA \ certify that I served the attached subpoena by delivering a copy and the required fee of $10.00 to Mitchell Madden in person, at 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 120, Dallas, Texas 752.34 on August , 2006 at___: am/p.m. My fee for this service has been paid in advance. . [printed name] [tit.e] THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCBELL MADDEN Page 20£508/11/2006 17 04 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP 006/008 EXHIBIT A” DEFINITIONS _a) "You" and “your” refers to Mitchell Madden. b) "Plaintiff" refers to Craig Dyer. c) “DCI” refers to defendant Dyer Custom Installation, Inc. d) As used herein, "document" and “documents” shall mean any document, thing, or other tangible medium of storage, including, but not limited to, writings, printed material, photographs, videotapes, computer data, in its pative format, and audio recordings of every kind, in Your possession, custody, or control, or known by You to ex'st, irrespective of whether the document is one intended for or transmitted internally by You, or intended for or transmitted to any other person or entity, including without limitation any government agency, department, administrative entity, or personnel. It shall include communications in words, symbols, pictures, sound recordings, films, tapes, and information stored in, or accessible through, computer or other information storage or retrieval systems, together with the codes and/or programming instructions and other materials necessary to understand and use such systems. For purposes of illustration and not limitation, the terms shall include: correspondence; transcripts of testimony; letters; notes, reports; papers; files; books; records; contracts; agreements; telegrams; teletypes and other communications sent or received; diaries; calendars; logs, notes, or mevaorar.da of telephonic or face-to-face conversations; drafts; workpapers,; agendas; bulletiss; notices; circulars; announcements; instructions; schedules; minutes, summaries, notes, and other records and recordings of any conferences, meetings, visits, statements, and other records, obligations and expenditures; canceled checks, vouchers, receipts, end other records of payment; ledgers; journals, balance sheets, provit and loss statements, and other sources of financial data; analyses; statements; intervi:ws; affidavits; prinved matter (including published books, articles, speeches, and newspaper clippings), pn-ss ~ releases; charts; drawings; specifications; manuals; brochures; parts lists; memoranda of all kind to and from any persons, agencies, or entities; technical and engineering reports, evaluations, advice, recommendations, commentaries, conclusions, studies, test plans, manuals, procedures, data, reports, results and conclusions; records of administrative, technical and financial actions, taken or recommended; title documents, such as deeds, leases, assignments, and liens, and all other writings the conteats of which relatc to, discuss, consider, or otherwise refer to the subject matter of the particular discovery requested. e) "Person" and “persons” shall include natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, joint ventures, and corporations. THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page 3 af 5aq) 2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 08/11/2006 17:04 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH,LLP INSTRUCTIONS Copying: The requesting party agrees to payment of reasonable costs for reproduction or copying as provided by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Extensions of Time: Any agreement for extension of time to respond to these Requests for Production must be in writing. Lost or Destroyed Documents: If any requested document has been lost or destroyed, for each such document state the circumstances relating to the loss or destruction of such document, the approximate date of the loss or destruction and a reasonably complete description of the contents of such document. Identify: In those instances where the word "identity," is used in these requests for discovery, it should be interpreted as requiring with respect to individuals, the perscn's name, last known address and telephone number. With respect to documents or things, it should be interpreted requiring sufficient information regarding the item so that the party seeking discovery can locate and identify the object as readily as the party from whom it is being sought. Computer Based Information: In those instances where requested information is stored only on software or other data compilations, the responding part’ should either produce the raw data along with all codes and programs for translating it into usable form or produce the information in a finished usable form, which would include all necessary glossaries, keys and indices for interpretation of the material. Document Destruction: It is requested that all documents and/or other data compilations which might impact on the subject matter of this litization be preserved and that any ongoing process of document destruction involving such documents cease immediately. DOCUME THINGS REQUESTED Any and all documents evidencing or relating to all agreements between You and Plaintiff. A copy of all agreements between You and Plaintiff regardiag the funding anc/or formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC. A copy of any document evidencing an agreement between You and Plaintiff regarding the funding and/or formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff conceming the funding and/or formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding DCI. THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page dof § @oo7soog08/11/2008 17°64 FAX 2148232007 NOWAK and STAUCH, LLP 008/008 6. All correspondence between You atid Plaintiff regarding the business of appliance installation from September 2003 through July 2004. 7. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding customer: of DCI. 8. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding employees of DCI. 9. All correspondence between You and Plaintiff regarding work: to be performed >y Plaintiff on Your residence located at 6218 Raintree Court, Dallas, Texas. 10. All correspondence between You and any person not a party to this lawsuit regardiog DCI, Plaintiff, the appliance installation business, or DCI’s customers. 11. All documents relating to the work performed by Plaintiff on Your residence located at 6218 Raintree Court, Dallas, Texas. 12. Copies of all checks written by You to Plaintiff between September 2003 through July 2004, 13. All documents evidencing receipts for payments made by You to Plaintiff between September 2003 through July 2004. 14. Ali documents evidencing loans made by You, or by a company for which you are an officer or director, to Plaintiff or a company for which Plaintiff is aa officer or director. 15. All documents evidencing proposals made by Plaintiff to You proposing the start of a business that provides appliance installation services. 16. A copy of any fee agreement between You and Plaintiff. 17. A copy of any documents evidencing or referencing the formaticn of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC. 18. . All documents evidencing notes, diaries, or calendars regarding conversations with Plaintiff that concemed starting a business offering appliance installation services. 19. All documents evidencing notes, diaries, or calendars regarding conversations wrth Plaintiff that concemed the formation of Dyer Mechanical Services, LLC. THE STATE OF TEXAS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF MITCHELL MADDEN Page Sof Say e i P 972.484.7780 MEMBER: TANAS@ IDAHO BARS ~ Madden | Sewell ROARD CERTIFIED, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW’ 7 972.484.7743 TEXAS BOARD OF LECAL SPECIALIZATION Four Hickory Centre F / L E madden @maddensewell.com 1755 Wittington Place, el - Dallas, Texas 75234