Preview
FILED
11/24/2021 11:59 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Cassandra Walker DEPUTY
NO. DC-18-05978
ASHLEY HOLBERT, Individually and as ) IN THE IOIST DISTRICT COURT
Next Friend of K.H., a Minor and as )
Representative of the Estate of ROWDY LEE )
HOLBERT, Deceased, and DONNA )
HOLBERT, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
And )
)
BIG B CRANE, LLC and INTERNATIONAL )
COMPANY OF HANOVER S.E. )
)
Intervenors, )
)
VS. ) IN AND FOR
)
CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; )
CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, )
LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; )
and SERVA CORPORATION, )
)
Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDAN TS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC.
CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT. LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF
CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP. LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, Charles M. Noteboom and Brian W.
Butcher, Noteboom Law Firm, 669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100, Hurst, TX 76053.
COME NOW CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY
SERVICES GROUP, LLC and NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (“Defendants” or
“Cretic”), Defendants in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and file the following
Objections to the scope of the Intervenor’s Fourth Amended Notice of Intent to Take the Remote
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 1
Oral and Videotaped Deposition of the Designated Corporate Representative of Catapult Energy
Services Group, LLC as follows:
1. The lift at issue and preparations for the lift, including responsibilities for complying with
standards for rigging, signaling, lift plans and safety coordination (including any
contentions by the Defendant about What person or entity was responsible for such
responsibilities).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
2. The fabrication of the equipment at issue, including the hinged plate and pedestal
modification to the trailer (including design, specifications, cost analysis, instructions and
conversations with Rowe Welding, and testing).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
3. The industry standards for all equipment at issue including, by way of example and not
limitation, the rating of chains used during the lift and use of a crane to lift pre-assembled
BOP/lubricator stacks.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 3 as the same is overly broad and assumes that
there are industry standards for the equipment at issue in this case, which is denied.
Subject to the foregoing objection, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult has
no knowledge regarding these matters.
4. All safety violations (fines, reprimands of any type, citations, notices of violation,
warnings) issued to the Defendant by any governmental entity during the five years
preceding the incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 4 as the same is overly broad as
to subject matter.
5. All repairs ordered and performed on the equipment at issue (all four units of modified
flatbed trailers with hinged steel plates and pegs).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
6. Catapult’s records custodian for all documents produced in discovery.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 6 as the same is vague and
ambiguous. It is not understood what is meant by “records custodian” for the documents
produced in discovery.
7. The admissibility of records produced by Catapult.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 2
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 7 as the scope is overly broad and vague and
ambiguous. It is not understood what is meant by “the admissibility of records produced by
Catapult”.
8. Prior incidents involving BOP/lubricator stacks on the unit falling or fractures to the
hinged plate and/or pedestal.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
9. Cretic’s safety record, including all complaints and criticism of Cretic’s safety practices
and policies during the five years preceding the incident at issue, whether by employees,
contractors, or third parties.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 9 as to its scope as the same is overly broad
and seeks information regarding “a safety record” and is not confined to incidents similar to the
one at issue in this case.
10. Any and all complaints, criticisms or concerns expressed by any of the Defendants’
employees or third parties concerning the safety of the equipment at issue (the pre-
assembled BOP and lubricator stack; modified trailer/hinged plate design; safety chains,
and rigging components).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
11. All complaints, comments, or concerns expressed to or by the Defendants concerning
rocking or wobbling of the equipment at issue (including any of the four units utilized by
Cretic during the five years preceding January 10, 2018).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
12. Any communications between employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B
Crane (texts messages, emails, phone conversations) regarding the lift at issue, including
communications before and after Rowdy Holbert’s death.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between their employees
and the employees of Big B Crane regarding the lift at issue.
13. Any communications between employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B
Crane concerning any lift of any of the Defendant’s pre-assembled BOP and lubricator
stacks both before and after the incident at issue, including the lift in Pecos in 2017 that
resulted in a stack falling and hitting a Big B Crane.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between their employees
and the employees of Big B Crane regarding the lift at issue.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 3
14. Welding (both fabrication and repairs) for all four of the modified trailer/pre-assembled
BOP and lubricator stacks utilized by the Defendant during the five years preceding the
incident.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
15. Welding repairs on any of the four modified trailer/BOP and lubricator stacks after the
incident at issue.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
16. The Catapult’s Conversations with Cretic employees (including former employees) that
occurred after this lawsuit was filed.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 16 as the same is overly broad and infringes
upon the party-investigative—work privilege.
17. Steps and measures utilized or employed by the Defendants after Rowdy Holbert’s death
to prevent BOP/lubricator stacks from falling again.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 17 as the same is not relevant and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult has
no knowledge regarding these matters.
18. The cost of the equipment at issue and any cost comparisons for hydraulic lift equipment
or other safer alternative designs.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
19. Catapult’s corporate structure and relationship with the other defendants.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide or has already provided.
20. All equipment with similar design that has been used in the industry by any other coil
tubing company (pre—assembled BOP and lubricator stacks designed to be raised from
horizontal to a vertical position by a crane).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
21. Allcommunications (personal, phone, text or email) between the Defendants and Laredo
Energy representatives that in any way concerns the lift at issue.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between Defendants and
Laredo Energy Representatives regarding the lift at issue.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 4
22. Any and all communications between the Defendant and Laredo Energy representatives
that in any way concerns other work between Cretic and third-party contractors (including
but not limited to Big B) at the job site at issue.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between the Defendant
and Laredo Energy Representatives regarding the job site at issue.
23. A11 documents governing the scope and direction of Cretic’s work at the job site at issue,
including the lift at issue that resulted in Rowdy Holbert’s death.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters.
24. Catapult’s contentions concerning the interpretation of all governing contractual
agreements between the Defendant and Laredo, as well as Big B and Laredo.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 24 as the same is overly broad and infringes
upon the attomey-client and attomey-work-product privileges. Defendant further objects to
paragraph 24 on the grounds it seeks to require Defendant Catapult to testify regarding pure
questions of law.
25. Each Defendant’s net worth during each of the previous five years.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 25 as the same is overly broad and is an
improper mechanism for obtaining the net worth of these Defendants.
26. The business relationship between Cretic and each of the other named Defendants.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide.
27. The sale of Cretic stock or assets after the fatal accident.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 27 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
Defendant further objects to paragraph no. 27 on the grounds that the information is not relevant
to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
28. Communications flowing between Catapult and its insurance carriers regarding the
captioned action.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 28 as the same is overly broad and infringes
upon the attomey-client and attomey-work-product privileges. Defendant further objects to
paragraph 28 on the grounds it seeks to require Defendant Catapult to testify regarding pure
questions of law.
29. Catapult’s conduct after the fatal accident in issue.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 5
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 29 as the same is not relevant and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence.
30. The allegations in Catapult’s live pleading, including all material facts for each of its
defenses.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide.
31. The business relationship between Cretic and each of other Defendants.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide.
32. Catapult’s designated expert and the expert’s activities related to this case.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 32 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
33. Communications between and among the named Defendants to this litigation relating to
the facts alleged in this case — including communications with agents and representatives
of the named parties.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 33 as the same is overly broad and infringes
upon the attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges.
34. The deposition testimony taken in this case.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 34 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
35. The written discovery responses served by the Defendants in the captioned action.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide.
36. Prior legal proceedings in which Cretic was a party, whether asserting or defending
claims.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 36 as the same is not relevant and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence.
37. Background information on the deponent.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 37 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
38. The affinnative claims asserted by the Plaintiffs and Intervenors.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 38 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
39. Background information on NGP Capital Management, LLC.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 6
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 39 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
40. The investigation of the incident at issue, including Witness statements, incident/accident
reports and notes used in preparing such reports, conversations with OSHA, law
enforcement and/or other governmental officials.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 4O as the same is overly broad
and infringes upon the attorney-client privilege.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult
has no knowledge regarding these matters.
OBJECTIONS
Defendants object to each of the items requested in the duces tecum attached to
Intervenors’ Third Amended Notice of Intent to Take the Remote Oral and Videotaped
Deposition of the Designated Corporate Representative of Catapult Energy Services Group,
LLC’s Duces Tecum on the grounds that the items were not requested timely in accordance with
Rule 196 and other applicable rules of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
DUCES TECUM
l. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the investigation of the incident
at issue, including witness statements, incident/accident reports and notes used in
preparing such reports, conversations with OSHA, law enforcement and/or other
governmental officials.
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such
documents.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
2. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the lift at issue and
preparations for the lift, including responsibilities for complying with standards for
rigging, signaling, lift plans and safety coordination (including any contentions by the
Defendant about what person or entity was responsible for such responsibilities).
RESPONSE: Defendants object to the scope of request no. 2 as the same assumes that the
Defendants had any responsibility for the “lift” at issue, preparations for the “lift” responsibilities
for complying with standards for rigging, signaling, lift plans and safety coordination, all of
which are untrue. Therefore, Defendants object to the scope as being overly broad.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and Without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is
not in possession of such documents.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 7
3. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to Show the fabrication of the
equipment at issue, including the hinged plate and pedestal modification to the trailer
(including design, specifications, cost analysis, instructions and conversations with Rowe
Welding, and testing).
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such
documents.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
4. Produce all documents that show or tend to show the industry standards for all equipment
at issue including, by way of example and not limitation, the rating of chains used during
the lift and use of a crane to lift pre-assembled BOP/lubricator stacks.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to request no. 4 as the same is overly broad and assumes that
there are industry standards for the equipment at issue in this case, which is denied.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is
not in possession of such documents.
5. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show all safety violations (fines,
reprimands of any type, citations, notices of violation, warnings) issued to the Defendant
by any governmental entity during the five years preceding the incident.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to the scope of request no. 5 as the same is overly broad as to
subject matter.
6. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show all repairs ordered and
performed on the equipment at issue (all four units of modified flatbed trailers with
hinged steel plates and pegs).
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such
documents.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
7. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Cretic’s records custodian for
all documents produced in discovery.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of request no. 7 as the same is vague and
ambiguous. It is not understood what is meant by “records custodian” for the documents
produced in discovery.
8. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show prior incidents involving
BOP/lubricator stacks on the unit falling or fractures to the hinged plate and/or pedestal.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 8
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such
documents.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
9. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Cretic’s safety record,
including all complaints and criticism of Cretic’s safety practices and policies during the
five years preceding the incident at issue, Whether by employees, contractors, or third
parties.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to request no. 9 as to its scope as the same is overly broad and
seeks information regarding “a safety record” and is not confined to incidents similar to the one
at issue in this case.
10. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all complaints,
criticisms or concerns expressed by any of the Defendants’ employees or third parties
concerning the safety of the equipment at issue (the pre-assembled BOP and lubricator
stack; modified trailer/hinged plate design; safety chains, and rigging components).
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such
documents.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
11. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all complaints,
comments, or concerns expressed to or by the Defendant concerning rocking or wobbling
of the equipment at issue (including any of the four units utilized by Cretic during the
five years preceding January 10, 2018).
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
12. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any communications between
employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B Crane (texts messages, emails,
phone conversations) regarding the lift at issue, including communications before and
after Rowdy Holbert’s death.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
13. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any communications between
employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B Crane concerning any lift of any of
the Defendant’s pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stacks both before and after the
incident at issue, including the lift in Pecos in 2017 that resulted in a stack falling and
hitting a Big B Crane.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 9
14. Produce any and all documents that Show or tend to show welding (both fabrication and
repairs) for all four of the modified trailer/pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stacks
utilized by the Defendant during the five years preceding the incident.
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced
in Discovery.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
15. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show welding repairs on any of the
four modified trailer/BOP and lubricator stacks after the incident at issue.
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced
in Discovery.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
l6. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Catapult’s conversations with
Cretic employees (including former employees) that occurred after this lawsuit was filed.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to request no. 16 as the same is overly broad and infringes
upon the party-investigative—work privilege.
l7. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show steps and measures utilized or
employed by the Defendants after Rowdy Holbert’s death to prevent BOP/lubricator
stacks from falling again.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to the scope of request no. l7 as the same is not relevant and is
not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is
not in possession of such documents.
18. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the cost of the equipment at
issue and any cost comparisons for hydraulic lift equipment or other safer alternative
designs.
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced
in Discovery.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
l9. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Cretic’s corporate structure and
relationship with co-defendants.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 10
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 19 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
Defendant further objects to paragraph no. 19 on the grounds that the information is not relevant
to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant
evidence.
20. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all equipment with
similar design that has been used in the industry by any other coil tubing company (pre-
assembled BOP and lubricator stacks designed to be raised from horizontal to a vertical
position by a crane).
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced
in Discovery.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
21. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all communications
(personal, phone, text or email) between the Defendant and Laredo Energy
representatives that in any way concerns the lift at issue.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
22. Produce all documents that show or tend to show any and all communications between
any of the Defendants and Laredo Energy representatives that in any way concerns other
work between Cretic and third party contractors (including but not limited to Big B) at
the job site at issue.
RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
23. Produce any and all documents governing the scope and direction of Cretic’s work at the
job site at issue, including the lift at issue that resulted in Rowdy Holbert’s death.
RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such
documents.
Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents.
24. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the Defendants’ contentions
concerning the interpretation of all governing contractual agreements between the
Defendant and Laredo, as well as Big B and Laredo.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 24 as the same is overly broad and infringes
upon the attomey-client and attomey-work—product privileges. Defendant further objects to
paragraph 24 on the grounds it seeks to require Defendant Catapult to testify regarding pure
questions of law.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page ll
Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is
not in possession of such documents.
25. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the Defendant’s net worth
during each of the previous five years.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request no. 25 as the same is overly broad and is an improper
mechanism for obtaining the net worth of Catapult.
26. Documents related to the financial operations and financial condition of Cretic between
2014 and 2019.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 26 on the grounds that the information is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any
relevant evidence.
27. Documents related to the sale of Cretic stock or ownership interests after 2017.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 27 as to its scope and same is overly broad.
Defendant further objects to paragraph no. 27 on the grounds that the information is not relevant
to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant
evidence.
28. Documents related to the sale of a more than 15% of Cretic’s assets after 2017.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 28 on the grounds that the information is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any
relevant evidence.
29. Complaints by other oil field operators that hired Cretic anytime between 2016 and 2020.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 29 on the grounds that it is overly broad as to
subject matter, not reasonably limited to time and scope, and is not relevant to the subject matter
of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence.
Subject to the foregoing objection, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is
not in possession of such documents.
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 12
Respectfully submitted,
FARRIS PARKER & HUBBARD
A Professional Corporation
P. O. Box 9620
Amarillo, TX 79105-9620
(806) 374-5317; FAX: 372-2107
By /S/ Chris D. Parker
Thomas D. Farris, SB# 06844700
tfarris@pf-lawfirm. com
Chris D. Parker; SB#15479100
cparker@pf-lawfirm.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 24th day of November 2021, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the above-named court, using the electronic case filing
system of the court. Pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following
attorneys of record were served electronically:
Charles M. Noteboom
Brian W. Butcher
Noteboom Law Firm
669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100
Hurst, TX 76053
butcher@noteboom.com
M. Forest Nelson
John Holman Barr
Burt Barr & Associates, LLP
P.O. Box 223667
Dallas, TX 75222-3667
jbarr@bbarr.com
Jill C. Pennington
Davis Gerald & Cremer
400 W. Illinois, Suite 1400
Midland, TX 79701
icpennington@dgclaw.com
/s/ Chris D. Parker
Chris D. Parker
DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES
GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’
FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC
WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page l3
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Shawn Hinkle on behalf of Chris Parker
Bar No. 15479100
shinkle@pf—lawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 59465376
Status as of 11/24/2021 12:31 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Big B Crane LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
John HolmanBarr jbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
John HolmanBarr jbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Mary ChristianBarr mcbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Michael ForestNelson fnelson@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Melanie Baker mbaker@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Shawn SHinkle shinkle@pf-lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Chris DParker cparker@pf-lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Tom DFarris tfarris@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Jeri LMorgan jlmorgan@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Ruth Fields rfields@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Teresa Jones Teresa.Jones@dallascounty.org 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Gena KRogers gkrogers@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Melanie Baker mbaker@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Glenda Joyner joyner@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Becky Grooms bgrooms@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Amber DGriffith agriffith@pf-lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: Cretic Energy Services, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Chris D.Parker cparker@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Shawn Hinkle on behalf of Chris Parker
Bar No. 15479100
shinkle@pf—lawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 59465376
Status as of 11/24/2021 12:31 PM CST
Associated Case Party: International Insurance Company of Hanover S.E.
Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status
John HBarr jbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: LAREDO PETROLEUM INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Julie Griffis 24070032 jlgriffis@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Jill Christine Pennington 24007825 jcp@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: Ashley Holbert
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brian W.Butcher butcher@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Charles M.Noteboom noteboom@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: Donna Holbert
Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status
Brian W.Butcher butcher@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: Catapult Energy Services Group, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Chris Parker cparker@pf-Iawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Shawn Hinkle on behalf of Chris Parker
Bar No. 15479100
shinkle@pf—lawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 59465376
Status as of 11/24/2021 12:31 PM CST
Associated Case Party: NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Chris Parker cparker@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 11/24/2021 11:59 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Cassandra Walker DEPUTY NO. DC-18-05978 ASHLEY HOLBERT, Individually and as ) IN THE IOIST DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of K.H., a Minor and as ) Representative of the Estate of ROWDY LEE ) HOLBERT, Deceased, and DONNA ) HOLBERT, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) And ) ) BIG B CRANE, LLC and INTERNATIONAL ) COMPANY OF HANOVER S.E. ) ) Intervenors, ) ) VS. ) IN AND FOR ) CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; ) CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, ) LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; ) and SERVA CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDAN TS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC. CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT. LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP. LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, Charles M. Noteboom and Brian W. Butcher, Noteboom Law Firm, 669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100, Hurst, TX 76053. COME NOW CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC and NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (“Defendants” or “Cretic”), Defendants in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and file the following Objections to the scope of the Intervenor’s Fourth Amended Notice of Intent to Take the Remote DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 1 Oral and Videotaped Deposition of the Designated Corporate Representative of Catapult Energy Services Group, LLC as follows: 1. The lift at issue and preparations for the lift, including responsibilities for complying with standards for rigging, signaling, lift plans and safety coordination (including any contentions by the Defendant about What person or entity was responsible for such responsibilities). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 2. The fabrication of the equipment at issue, including the hinged plate and pedestal modification to the trailer (including design, specifications, cost analysis, instructions and conversations with Rowe Welding, and testing). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 3. The industry standards for all equipment at issue including, by way of example and not limitation, the rating of chains used during the lift and use of a crane to lift pre-assembled BOP/lubricator stacks. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 3 as the same is overly broad and assumes that there are industry standards for the equipment at issue in this case, which is denied. Subject to the foregoing objection, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 4. All safety violations (fines, reprimands of any type, citations, notices of violation, warnings) issued to the Defendant by any governmental entity during the five years preceding the incident. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 4 as the same is overly broad as to subject matter. 5. All repairs ordered and performed on the equipment at issue (all four units of modified flatbed trailers with hinged steel plates and pegs). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 6. Catapult’s records custodian for all documents produced in discovery. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 6 as the same is vague and ambiguous. It is not understood what is meant by “records custodian” for the documents produced in discovery. 7. The admissibility of records produced by Catapult. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 2 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 7 as the scope is overly broad and vague and ambiguous. It is not understood what is meant by “the admissibility of records produced by Catapult”. 8. Prior incidents involving BOP/lubricator stacks on the unit falling or fractures to the hinged plate and/or pedestal. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 9. Cretic’s safety record, including all complaints and criticism of Cretic’s safety practices and policies during the five years preceding the incident at issue, whether by employees, contractors, or third parties. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 9 as to its scope as the same is overly broad and seeks information regarding “a safety record” and is not confined to incidents similar to the one at issue in this case. 10. Any and all complaints, criticisms or concerns expressed by any of the Defendants’ employees or third parties concerning the safety of the equipment at issue (the pre- assembled BOP and lubricator stack; modified trailer/hinged plate design; safety chains, and rigging components). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 11. All complaints, comments, or concerns expressed to or by the Defendants concerning rocking or wobbling of the equipment at issue (including any of the four units utilized by Cretic during the five years preceding January 10, 2018). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 12. Any communications between employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B Crane (texts messages, emails, phone conversations) regarding the lift at issue, including communications before and after Rowdy Holbert’s death. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between their employees and the employees of Big B Crane regarding the lift at issue. 13. Any communications between employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B Crane concerning any lift of any of the Defendant’s pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stacks both before and after the incident at issue, including the lift in Pecos in 2017 that resulted in a stack falling and hitting a Big B Crane. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between their employees and the employees of Big B Crane regarding the lift at issue. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 3 14. Welding (both fabrication and repairs) for all four of the modified trailer/pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stacks utilized by the Defendant during the five years preceding the incident. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 15. Welding repairs on any of the four modified trailer/BOP and lubricator stacks after the incident at issue. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 16. The Catapult’s Conversations with Cretic employees (including former employees) that occurred after this lawsuit was filed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 16 as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the party-investigative—work privilege. 17. Steps and measures utilized or employed by the Defendants after Rowdy Holbert’s death to prevent BOP/lubricator stacks from falling again. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 17 as the same is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 18. The cost of the equipment at issue and any cost comparisons for hydraulic lift equipment or other safer alternative designs. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 19. Catapult’s corporate structure and relationship with the other defendants. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide or has already provided. 20. All equipment with similar design that has been used in the industry by any other coil tubing company (pre—assembled BOP and lubricator stacks designed to be raised from horizontal to a vertical position by a crane). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 21. Allcommunications (personal, phone, text or email) between the Defendants and Laredo Energy representatives that in any way concerns the lift at issue. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between Defendants and Laredo Energy Representatives regarding the lift at issue. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 4 22. Any and all communications between the Defendant and Laredo Energy representatives that in any way concerns other work between Cretic and third-party contractors (including but not limited to Big B) at the job site at issue. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not aware of any communications between the Defendant and Laredo Energy Representatives regarding the job site at issue. 23. A11 documents governing the scope and direction of Cretic’s work at the job site at issue, including the lift at issue that resulted in Rowdy Holbert’s death. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. 24. Catapult’s contentions concerning the interpretation of all governing contractual agreements between the Defendant and Laredo, as well as Big B and Laredo. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 24 as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the attomey-client and attomey-work-product privileges. Defendant further objects to paragraph 24 on the grounds it seeks to require Defendant Catapult to testify regarding pure questions of law. 25. Each Defendant’s net worth during each of the previous five years. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 25 as the same is overly broad and is an improper mechanism for obtaining the net worth of these Defendants. 26. The business relationship between Cretic and each of the other named Defendants. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide. 27. The sale of Cretic stock or assets after the fatal accident. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 27 as to its scope and same is overly broad. Defendant further objects to paragraph no. 27 on the grounds that the information is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28. Communications flowing between Catapult and its insurance carriers regarding the captioned action. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 28 as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the attomey-client and attomey-work-product privileges. Defendant further objects to paragraph 28 on the grounds it seeks to require Defendant Catapult to testify regarding pure questions of law. 29. Catapult’s conduct after the fatal accident in issue. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 5 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 29 as the same is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. 30. The allegations in Catapult’s live pleading, including all material facts for each of its defenses. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide. 31. The business relationship between Cretic and each of other Defendants. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide. 32. Catapult’s designated expert and the expert’s activities related to this case. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 32 as to its scope and same is overly broad. 33. Communications between and among the named Defendants to this litigation relating to the facts alleged in this case — including communications with agents and representatives of the named parties. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 33 as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges. 34. The deposition testimony taken in this case. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 34 as to its scope and same is overly broad. 35. The written discovery responses served by the Defendants in the captioned action. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult will provide. 36. Prior legal proceedings in which Cretic was a party, whether asserting or defending claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 36 as the same is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. 37. Background information on the deponent. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 37 as to its scope and same is overly broad. 38. The affinnative claims asserted by the Plaintiffs and Intervenors. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 38 as to its scope and same is overly broad. 39. Background information on NGP Capital Management, LLC. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 6 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 39 as to its scope and same is overly broad. 40. The investigation of the incident at issue, including Witness statements, incident/accident reports and notes used in preparing such reports, conversations with OSHA, law enforcement and/or other governmental officials. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of paragraph no. 4O as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the attorney-client privilege. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult has no knowledge regarding these matters. OBJECTIONS Defendants object to each of the items requested in the duces tecum attached to Intervenors’ Third Amended Notice of Intent to Take the Remote Oral and Videotaped Deposition of the Designated Corporate Representative of Catapult Energy Services Group, LLC’s Duces Tecum on the grounds that the items were not requested timely in accordance with Rule 196 and other applicable rules of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DUCES TECUM l. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the investigation of the incident at issue, including witness statements, incident/accident reports and notes used in preparing such reports, conversations with OSHA, law enforcement and/or other governmental officials. RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such documents. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 2. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the lift at issue and preparations for the lift, including responsibilities for complying with standards for rigging, signaling, lift plans and safety coordination (including any contentions by the Defendant about what person or entity was responsible for such responsibilities). RESPONSE: Defendants object to the scope of request no. 2 as the same assumes that the Defendants had any responsibility for the “lift” at issue, preparations for the “lift” responsibilities for complying with standards for rigging, signaling, lift plans and safety coordination, all of which are untrue. Therefore, Defendants object to the scope as being overly broad. Subject to the foregoing objections, and Without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 7 3. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to Show the fabrication of the equipment at issue, including the hinged plate and pedestal modification to the trailer (including design, specifications, cost analysis, instructions and conversations with Rowe Welding, and testing). RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such documents. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 4. Produce all documents that show or tend to show the industry standards for all equipment at issue including, by way of example and not limitation, the rating of chains used during the lift and use of a crane to lift pre-assembled BOP/lubricator stacks. RESPONSE: Defendants object to request no. 4 as the same is overly broad and assumes that there are industry standards for the equipment at issue in this case, which is denied. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 5. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show all safety violations (fines, reprimands of any type, citations, notices of violation, warnings) issued to the Defendant by any governmental entity during the five years preceding the incident. RESPONSE: Defendants object to the scope of request no. 5 as the same is overly broad as to subject matter. 6. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show all repairs ordered and performed on the equipment at issue (all four units of modified flatbed trailers with hinged steel plates and pegs). RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such documents. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 7. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Cretic’s records custodian for all documents produced in discovery. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the scope of request no. 7 as the same is vague and ambiguous. It is not understood what is meant by “records custodian” for the documents produced in discovery. 8. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show prior incidents involving BOP/lubricator stacks on the unit falling or fractures to the hinged plate and/or pedestal. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 8 RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such documents. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 9. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Cretic’s safety record, including all complaints and criticism of Cretic’s safety practices and policies during the five years preceding the incident at issue, Whether by employees, contractors, or third parties. RESPONSE: Defendants object to request no. 9 as to its scope as the same is overly broad and seeks information regarding “a safety record” and is not confined to incidents similar to the one at issue in this case. 10. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all complaints, criticisms or concerns expressed by any of the Defendants’ employees or third parties concerning the safety of the equipment at issue (the pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stack; modified trailer/hinged plate design; safety chains, and rigging components). RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such documents. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 11. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all complaints, comments, or concerns expressed to or by the Defendant concerning rocking or wobbling of the equipment at issue (including any of the four units utilized by Cretic during the five years preceding January 10, 2018). RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 12. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any communications between employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B Crane (texts messages, emails, phone conversations) regarding the lift at issue, including communications before and after Rowdy Holbert’s death. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 13. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any communications between employees of the Defendants and employees of Big B Crane concerning any lift of any of the Defendant’s pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stacks both before and after the incident at issue, including the lift in Pecos in 2017 that resulted in a stack falling and hitting a Big B Crane. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 9 14. Produce any and all documents that Show or tend to show welding (both fabrication and repairs) for all four of the modified trailer/pre-assembled BOP and lubricator stacks utilized by the Defendant during the five years preceding the incident. RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced in Discovery. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 15. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show welding repairs on any of the four modified trailer/BOP and lubricator stacks after the incident at issue. RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced in Discovery. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. l6. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Catapult’s conversations with Cretic employees (including former employees) that occurred after this lawsuit was filed. RESPONSE: Defendants object to request no. 16 as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the party-investigative—work privilege. l7. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show steps and measures utilized or employed by the Defendants after Rowdy Holbert’s death to prevent BOP/lubricator stacks from falling again. RESPONSE: Defendants object to the scope of request no. l7 as the same is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 18. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the cost of the equipment at issue and any cost comparisons for hydraulic lift equipment or other safer alternative designs. RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced in Discovery. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. l9. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show Cretic’s corporate structure and relationship with co-defendants. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 10 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 19 as to its scope and same is overly broad. Defendant further objects to paragraph no. 19 on the grounds that the information is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. 20. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all equipment with similar design that has been used in the industry by any other coil tubing company (pre- assembled BOP and lubricator stacks designed to be raised from horizontal to a vertical position by a crane). RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that such documents have been produced in Discovery. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 21. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show any and all communications (personal, phone, text or email) between the Defendant and Laredo Energy representatives that in any way concerns the lift at issue. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 22. Produce all documents that show or tend to show any and all communications between any of the Defendants and Laredo Energy representatives that in any way concerns other work between Cretic and third party contractors (including but not limited to Big B) at the job site at issue. RESPONSE: Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 23. Produce any and all documents governing the scope and direction of Cretic’s work at the job site at issue, including the lift at issue that resulted in Rowdy Holbert’s death. RESPONSE: It is Defendant Catapult’s understanding that Defendant Cretic has provided such documents. Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 24. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the Defendants’ contentions concerning the interpretation of all governing contractual agreements between the Defendant and Laredo, as well as Big B and Laredo. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 24 as the same is overly broad and infringes upon the attomey-client and attomey-work—product privileges. Defendant further objects to paragraph 24 on the grounds it seeks to require Defendant Catapult to testify regarding pure questions of law. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page ll Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. 25. Produce any and all documents that show or tend to show the Defendant’s net worth during each of the previous five years. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to request no. 25 as the same is overly broad and is an improper mechanism for obtaining the net worth of Catapult. 26. Documents related to the financial operations and financial condition of Cretic between 2014 and 2019. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 26 on the grounds that the information is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. 27. Documents related to the sale of Cretic stock or ownership interests after 2017. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 27 as to its scope and same is overly broad. Defendant further objects to paragraph no. 27 on the grounds that the information is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. 28. Documents related to the sale of a more than 15% of Cretic’s assets after 2017. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 28 on the grounds that the information is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. 29. Complaints by other oil field operators that hired Cretic anytime between 2016 and 2020. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to paragraph no. 29 on the grounds that it is overly broad as to subject matter, not reasonably limited to time and scope, and is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to any relevant evidence. Subject to the foregoing objection, and without waiving the same, Defendant Catapult is not in possession of such documents. DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page 12 Respectfully submitted, FARRIS PARKER & HUBBARD A Professional Corporation P. O. Box 9620 Amarillo, TX 79105-9620 (806) 374-5317; FAX: 372-2107 By /S/ Chris D. Parker Thomas D. Farris, SB# 06844700 tfarris@pf-lawfirm. com Chris D. Parker; SB#15479100 cparker@pf-lawfirm.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 24th day of November 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the above-named court, using the electronic case filing system of the court. Pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following attorneys of record were served electronically: Charles M. Noteboom Brian W. Butcher Noteboom Law Firm 669 Airport Freeway, Suite 100 Hurst, TX 76053 butcher@noteboom.com M. Forest Nelson John Holman Barr Burt Barr & Associates, LLP P.O. Box 223667 Dallas, TX 75222-3667 jbarr@bbarr.com Jill C. Pennington Davis Gerald & Cremer 400 W. Illinois, Suite 1400 Midland, TX 79701 icpennington@dgclaw.com /s/ Chris D. Parker Chris D. Parker DEFENDANTS CRETIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP, LLC’S AND NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS’ FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE REMOTE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THE DESIGNATED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF CATAPULT ENERGY GROUP, LLC WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE AND THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Page l3 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Shawn Hinkle on behalf of Chris Parker Bar No. 15479100 shinkle@pf—lawfirm.com Envelope ID: 59465376 Status as of 11/24/2021 12:31 PM CST Associated Case Party: Big B Crane LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status John HolmanBarr jbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT John HolmanBarr jbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Mary ChristianBarr mcbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Michael ForestNelson fnelson@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Melanie Baker mbaker@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Shawn SHinkle shinkle@pf-lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Chris DParker cparker@pf-lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Tom DFarris tfarris@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Jeri LMorgan jlmorgan@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Ruth Fields rfields@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Teresa Jones Teresa.Jones@dallascounty.org 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Gena KRogers gkrogers@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Melanie Baker mbaker@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Glenda Joyner joyner@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Becky Grooms bgrooms@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Amber DGriffith agriffith@pf-lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Associated Case Party: Cretic Energy Services, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Chris D.Parker cparker@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Shawn Hinkle on behalf of Chris Parker Bar No. 15479100 shinkle@pf—lawfirm.com Envelope ID: 59465376 Status as of 11/24/2021 12:31 PM CST Associated Case Party: International Insurance Company of Hanover S.E. Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status John HBarr jbarr@bbarr.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Associated Case Party: LAREDO PETROLEUM INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Julie Griffis 24070032 jlgriffis@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Jill Christine Pennington 24007825 jcp@dgclaw.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Associated Case Party: Ashley Holbert Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brian W.Butcher butcher@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Charles M.Noteboom noteboom@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Associated Case Party: Donna Holbert Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status Brian W.Butcher butcher@noteboom.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Associated Case Party: Catapult Energy Services Group, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Chris Parker cparker@pf-Iawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT Associated Case Party: NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Shawn Hinkle on behalf of Chris Parker Bar No. 15479100 shinkle@pf—lawfirm.com Envelope ID: 59465376 Status as of 11/24/2021 12:31 PM CST Associated Case Party: NGP ENERGY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Chris Parker cparker@pf—lawfirm.com 11/24/2021 11:59:41 AM SENT