Motion for Protective Order in STEVEN WEBSTER, et al vs. OMTC, INC., et al| Trellis.Law

On July 28, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Webster, Aaron, Webster, Steven, Woods, Dennis, and Omtc, Inc., Rogers, Ii, Dennis J., for CNTR CNSMR COM DEBT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
10/5/2020 11:32 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLASCO., TEXAS
Nannette Bryant DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-20-102 14

STEVEN WEBSTER, AARON WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and DENNIS WOODS, §
§
Plaintifﬁ, §
§
V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
g
DENNIS J. ROGERS, 11 and OMTC, INC, §
§
Defendants. § 19 1 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LIMITED PROTECTION FROM FINANCIAL
RECORDS DISCOVERY

Defendants OMTC, Inc. (“OMTC”) and Dennis James Rogers, II (“Rogers”) (collectively

the “OMTC Defendants”) under Rules 192.4 and 192.6 ﬁle this Motion for Limited Protection

from Financial Records Discovery, and would respectfully show:

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. Plaintiffs ﬁled suit t0 recover monies related t0 two Fuel Purchase Orders between

Defendant/Seller OMTC 0n the one hand, and Plaintiffs/Buyers, Steven Webster (“Webster) and

Dennis Woods (“Woods”), on the other.1 Currently in place for the duration of this lawsuit is an

Agreed Temporary Injunction as t0 OMTC’s Chase business account, Account N0. XXX7879

(“Chase Account”) and Rogers” Goldman Sachs personal account, Account N0. XXX708-8

(“Goldman Sachs Account”), limiting any Withdrawals from those accounts t0 $1,000.00 each.

Plaintiffs have issued subpoenas to both Chase and Goldman Sachs seeking a_ll 0f Rogers’ personal

bank records and a_ll of OMTC’S business records from May 1, 2020 and continuing through the

Collectively, Plaintiffs Steven Webster and Dennis Woods are referred t0 as “Plaintiffs” herein. Plaintiff Aaron
1

Webster does not appear t0 be a proper party plaintiff as he is not a party t0 the Fuel Purchase Orders at issue and
does not allege any damage 0r injury in the lawsuit.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-1
present (“Bank Subpoenas”)? The Parties, however, agree that the Plaintiffs did not provide the

funds at issue in this lawsuit (“Funds”) t0 OMTC until June 19, 2020.3

2. In this Motion, the OMTC Defendants are only seeking very limited protection, and

they are not seeking t0 limit any of the speciﬁc documents or communications sought, i.e. monthly

account statements, copies 0f checks (front and back), ACH transfers, Wire Transfers, EFT

transfers, Inter-bank transfers, any other electronic 0r digital transfer of funds, 0r any non-

privileged communications.4 Prior t0 ﬁling this Motion, the OMTC Defendants’ counsel sought

agreement to limit the time of the Bank Subpoenas by seven weeks, from May 1, 2020 t0 the

present to June 19, 2020 to the present — the date Plaintiffs provided funds to OMTC. The OMTC

Defendants also sought to limit scope of the Bank Subpoenas to all OMTC bank records and t0

the Rogers’ personal Goldman Sachs Account. Plaintiffs refused both requests necessitating this

Motion for Limited Protection.

II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Per the Texas Rules, Defendant Rogers is entitled t0 limited protection.

3. “Discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to

the case.” In re Master Flo Valve Ina, 485 S.W.3d 207, 213 (TeX. App.—H0ust0n [14th Dist]

2016, no pet); see In re CSX Corp, 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex.2003) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam); In reAm. Optical Corp, 988 S.W.2d 71 1, 713 (Tex.1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

“Discovery may not be used as a ﬁshing expedition.” Id. at 713. “Discovery requests must be

limited t0 the relevant time, place and subject matter.” See In re Xeller, 6 S.W.3d 618, 626 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re CNA Holdings, Ina, 01—03—01271—

2
The Bank Subpoenas are attached as Exhibits A and B.
3
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition, Exhibits C and D.
4
Exhibits A and B.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-2
CV, 2004 WL 1944967, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 2, 2004, orig. proceeding).

Moreover, “[t]o protect the movant from undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment,

annoyance, or invasion of person, constitutional, or property rights, the court may make any order

in the interest of justice and may – among other things – order that: (1) the requested discovery

not be sought in whole or in part; (2) the extent or subject matter of discovery be limited.” TEX. R.

CIV. P. 192.6(b).

4. Further, “an order that compels overly broad discovery well outside the bounds of

proper discovery is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.” In re Graco

Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex.2006) (per curiam). “A central consideration in

determining overbreadth is whether the [discovery] request could have been more narrowly

tailored to avoid including tenuous information....” In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153. Comment

1 to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192 states that “[w]hile the scope of discovery is quite broad,

it is nevertheless confined by the subject matter of the case and reasonable expectations of

obtaining information that will aid resolution of the dispute.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 192 cmt. 1. In

addition, the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that discovery may not be used as

a fishing expedition. K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.1996) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995);

Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995). Requests that are overly broad

encompass time periods or activities beyond those at issue in the case or, in other words, matters

of questionable relevance. See In re Alford Chevrolet–Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 180 n. 1 (Tex.1999)

(orig. proceeding); see also In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35, 40 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2009, no pet.)

Defendants' Motion for Protection-3
B. Defendants seek a reasonable time limitation from May 1, 2020 t0 the present t0 June
19, 2020 to the present because any bank record requested prior t0 the time Plaintiffs
deposited the Funds are entirely irrelevant.

5. The OMTC Defendants are only asking that the Court limit the time period to the

date that the Funds were deposited into Account N0. XXX7879 — June 19, 2020 t0 the present.

Anything before that date is irrelevant, unlikely to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence,

unnecessarily harassing, an an improper invasion into the OMTC Defendants’ ﬁnancial life, and/or
discovery into the facts of this case can be determined from less intrusive means. Plaintiffs’

counsel’s stated basis for refusing t0 limited the time period from to June 19, 2020 is:

Limiting the time period to June 19, 2020 to the present would be unduly narrow,
as Plaintiffs speciﬁcally plead that their claims arise from the Vitol auction, which
supposedly arose in May/June 2020 timeframe. Plaintiffs are entitled t0 see What
transactions Defendants may have had related to that (even prior to June 19, 2020),
as it is reasonably tailored t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence about the
circumstances giving rise t0 the Lawsuits

In Plaintiffs’ live petition, however, Plaintiffs acknowledge the Vitol auction did not occur until

after Plaintiffs” deposited the Funds:

In order to participate in the auction, an upfront cash deposit was required and,
since the ﬁnal awards had not yet been made, the dollar amounts posted were
estimated based 0n the anticipated volumes awarded and the current market prices
for those products.6

While Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of facts related to the Vitol auction, the OMTC
Defendants’ bank records prior to the date that Plaintiffs deposited the Funds do not accomplish

that purpose. Certainly, other less intrusive and invasive forms 0f discovery are available t0

Plaintiffs, including discovery requests which Plaintiffs are currently seeking such as the OMTC
Defendants’ communications, depositions, discovery from Vitol, etc. Thus, the OMTC
Defendants’ bank records prior t0 June 19, 2020 are irrelevant, not likely t0 lead to the discovery

5
EX. C, Counsel’s email conference regarding limiting the scope 0f the Bank Subpoenas.
6
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition, 1]
11.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-4
0f admissible evidence, are an unnecessary invasion 0f privacy, and/or can be obtained by other

less intrusive means.

C. Defendants seek a reasonable scope limitation that still includes discovery 0f all of

OMTC’s bank records and Rogers’ personal bank records subject t0 the Agreed
Temporary Injunction.

6. The contracts at issue in this case, the Fuel Purchase Orders, are between OMTC
and the Plaintiffs, not between Rogers and the Plaintiffs.7 As to Rogers’ Goldman Sachs Account,

Rogers” unsworn text message(s) show that that he would use that account if he was unable t0 pay

the Funds from the Chase Account. While the OMTC Defendants continue to disagree that the

Goldman Sachs Account is relevant t0 this dispute solely because Rogers offered t0 use Funds

from that account, Rogers agreed t0 subject that account t0 the Temporary Injunction.

Additionally, Rogers agrees t0 not oppose Plaintiffs’ records request from the Goldman Sachs

Account. However, simply because Rogers informed Plaintiffs that he would use a personal

account ifnecessary, does automatically subject all ofRogers’ personal bank records t0 disclosure.

Furthermore, the OMTC Defendants are not objecting t0 the discovery of all records requested

from any OMTC bank account as OMTC is the proper party t0 this lawsuit.
7. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s primary reason noted for seeking all Rogers’ personal records

was as follows:

Plaintiffs are entitled to trace the path 0f those funds Without being unduly limited
t0 only seeing transfers to/among OMTC accounts only.8
Based 0n the claims made in this lawsuit, the OMTC Defendants do not disagree that Plaintiffs are
entitled to trace the path of the Funds. However, Plaintiffs have duly sought that information in

discovery requests to the OMTC Defendants, and by agreement of the Parties, the OMTC

7
Exhibits D and E, the Fuel Purchase Orders.
8
Exhibit C.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-5
Defendants have agreed t0 produce documents responsive t0 those requests on October 9, 2020.

Therefore, the Bank Subpoenas, which seek all of Rogers’ personal bank records from both Chase

and Goldman Sachs, are overbroad, constitute an unnecessary invasion of privacy, and Plaintiffs

are able to discover the information likely to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence through

their discovery requests t0 the OMTC Defendants and other third-paﬁy discovery requests.
III. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the OMTC Defendants pray that this motion

be granted; that this Court issue an order pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6

providing limited protection from the Bank Subpoenas; and that this Court grant all other relief,

either in law or in equity, t0 which the OMTC Defendants may show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,

HENNEMAN RAU LLP
By: /s/ Bradley M Kirklin
Bradley M. Kirklin
State Bar No. 24046222
George H. Rau III
State Bar No. 24037335
815 Walker Street, Suite 1440
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: 713-955-6030
Facsimile: 713-955-6141
Email: bkirklin(a>hennemanrau.c0m
Email: 2rau@hennemanrau.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
OMTC, INC. & DENNIS J. ROGERS, II

Defendants' Motion for Protection-6
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference
atwhich there as a substantive discussion of every item presented to the Court in this motion,
and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able t0 resolve those matters presented.

Certiﬁed to the Day of October 5, 2020 by:

/s/ Bradley M. Kirklin

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE

Ihereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document was served pursuant to
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on October 5, 2020, upon the following:

Meghan Dawson McElvy Via E-Service
Margaret L. Wittenmyer
Baker Botts L.L.P.
One Shell Plaza
9 1 0 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002
Email: meghanmcelvvébbakerbotts.com
Email: margaret.wittenmver@bakerbotts.com

Corey Wehmeyer
Santoyo Wehmeyer P.C.
IBC Highway 281 North Centre Building
12400 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 300
San Antonio, TX 78216
Email: cwehmever@swenergvlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Bradley M Kirklin

Defendants' Motion for Protection-7
CAUSE NO. DC-20- 1 02 14

Steven Webster, Aaron Webster, and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Dennis Woods,

Plaintiffs,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
OOOOmOODOOOWWDOODOmWDOOO

Dennis J. Rogers, II and OMTC, Inc.,

Defendants. 19 1 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PER SUBPOENA WITH
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF
DUCES TECUM TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
PURSUANT TO TEX. R. CIV. P. 205.2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Steven Webster, Aaron Webster and Dennis Woods,

Plaintiffs in the above styled case, intend t0 subpoena records 0f JPMorgan Chase Bank,

National Association (“JPMorgan Chase”) responsive to the categories set forth below.

Responsive documents are to be produced by JPMorgan Chase, to Baker Botts, LLP, on or

before October 5, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. This notice 0f request for production 0f documents per

Subpoena Duces Tecum is being made in compliance with TeX. R. CiV. P. 205.2. Categories

0f documents sought pursuant to the Subpoena Duces Tecum Will include the following:

A. Dennis James Rogers, II

1. A11 monthly account statements of Dennis James Rogers, II for the period
May 2020 t0 present maintained
1, at JPMorgan Chase (the “Rogers
JPMorgan Chase Accounts”).

2. Copies 0f checks (front and back) reﬂecting payments into or out of any of
the Rogers JPMorgan Chase Accounts, With respect t0 any accounts
maintained by JPMorgan Chase for the period May 1, 2020 t0 present.

3. Documents reﬂecting, evidencing, or relating to the following for the
periodMay 1, 2020 to present:

a. ACH transfers to or from any of the Rogers JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;
EXH B |T |

A
Defendants' Motion for Protection-8
b. Wire transfers to or from any of the Rogers JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

c. EFT transfers to 0r from any 0f the Rogers JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

d. Inter—bank transfers of funds t0 or from any of the Rogers
JPMorgan Chase Accounts; and

e. Any other form 0f electronic or digital transfer of funds from any
of the Rogers JPMorgan Chase Accounts.

4. A11 communications sent to or received from Dennis James Rogers, II or
any representative 0f Dennis James Rogers, II for the period May 1, 2020
t0 present, including but not limited t0 e-mails, text messages, letters,
memorandums, written recollections 0f phone conversations, voicemail
messages, instant messages, or other forms of communications, inclusive
0f any documents referenced Within the communications.

B. OMTC, Inc.

1. A11 monthly account statements of OMTC, Inc. for the period May20201,

to present maintained at JPMorgan Chase (the “OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts”).

2. Copies of checks (front and back) reﬂecting payments into or out of any of
the OMTC JPMorgan Chase Accounts, with respect t0 any accounts
maintained by JPMorgan Chase for the period May 1, 2020 t0 present.

3. Documents reﬂecting, evidencing, or relating to the following for the
periodMay 1, 2020 to present:

a. ACH transfers t0 0r from any of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

b. Wire transfers to 0r from any of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

c. EFT transfers to 01' from any of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

d. Inter-bank transfers 0f funds t0 0r from any 0f the OMTC
JPMorgan Chase Accounts; and

e. Any other form of electronic or digital transfer 0f ﬁlnds from any
of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase Accounts.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-9
4. All communications sent to or received from OMTC, Inc. or any
representative of OMTC, Inc. for the period May 1, 2020 to present,
including but not limited to e-mails, text messages, letters, memorandums,
written recollections of phone conversations, voicemail messages, instant
messages, or other forms of communications, inclusive of any documents
referenced within the communications.

A proposed form of the subpoena directed to JPMorgan Chase, is attached hereto.

Plaintiffs agree they will pay all reasonable, necessary and required fees to JPMorgan Chase,

for production of the requested documents. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.4,

electronic or magnetic information required pursuant to this subpoena may be printed and

delivered in paper copy or e-mailed to meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com and

margaret.wittenmyer@bakerbotts.com in electronic form attachments to any such e-mail

transmission. Such electronic form may include PDF files, Excel spreadsheets, or Word

documents. Magnetic information may alternatively be produced by USB drive or other

magnetic storage device downloadable onto a windows operating system driven personal

computer.

3
Defendants' Motion for Protection-10
Dated August 26, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

By: /s/ Meghan
Dawson McElvV
Meghan Dawson McElvy
State Bar No. 24065 1 27
meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com
Margaret L. Wittenmyer
State Bar No. 24 1 06593
margaret.wittenmyer@bakerbotts.com
9 1 0 Louisiana St
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (7 1 3) 229-1234
Facsimile: (713) 229-1522

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS STEVEN WEBSTER,
AARON WEBSTER, AND DENNIS WOODS

Defendants' Motion for Protection-11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This certiﬁes that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon the
Defendants, by and through the below counsel of record, Via electronic service 0n August 26,
2020:

Bradley M. Kirklin
Henneman Rau LLP
815 Walker Street, Suite 1440
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 955-6030
bkirklin@hennemanrau.com

George Rau
Henneman Rau LLP
815 Walker Street, Suite 1440
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 955-6030
grau@hennemanrau.com

Further, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Request for Production per
Subpoena With Duces Tecum of is being served upon the following recipient 10 days before the
subpoena is served thereon in compliance with Tex. R. CiV. P. 205.2:

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
c/o CT Corporation System
1999 Bryan St. Ste. 900
Dallas, Texas 75201-3136

/S/ Margaret Wittenmyer
Margaret Wittenmyer

Defendants' Motion for Protection-12
CAUSE NO. DC-20- 1 02 14

Steven Webster, Aaron Webster, and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Dennis Woods, §

Plaintiffs, g

V. g DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Dennis J. Rogers, II and OMTC, Inc., g

Defendants. g 19 1 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, c/o C T Corporation System, 1999
Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.

YOU ARE COMMANDED, at the instance of Steven Webster, Aaron Webster and Dennis
Woods, Plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause, to serve a Subpoena with Duces
copy of this

Tecum on JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, at C T Corporation System, 1999
Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136, and direct a representative of JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association t0 appear, produce, and permit inspection and copying of the
documents identiﬁed in the attached Duces Tecum, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, within
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association’s possession, custody 0r control. The requested
documents and information are t0 be produced at the following time and place: Baker Botts,
LLP, 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 0n or before October 5, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.

Condition for Enforcement 0f Subpoena. If the designated corporate
Precedent
representative 0f JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association delivers the signed and
notarized Business Records Afﬁdavit attached hereto as Exhibit “B” to the ofﬁces of Baker
Botts, LLP, at 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 0n 0r before October 5, 2020, at
“*”
5:00 p.m., signs his/her name in all blanks in the afﬁdavit marked with the mark and
attaches all responsive records t0 the correspondence Subpoena Duces Tecum, then this
Subpoena Will be deemed canceled and the corporate representative need not appear.

YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED:
Failure by any person Without adequate excuse t0 obey a subpoena served upon that
person may be deemed a contempt 0f the court from which the subpoena is issued 0r a
district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be punished by
ﬁne, conﬁnement 0r both.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-13
After serving a copy 0f this Subpoena Duces Tecum 0n the witness, deliver the original
Subpoena Duces Tecum to Baker Botts, LLP, 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, with
your return showing how you executed the Subpoena.

Date of Issuance

Subpoena Issued By:

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

Meghan Dawson McElvy
State Bar No. 24065 1 27
meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com
Margaret L. Wittenmyer
State Bar No. 24 1 06593
margaret.wittenmyer@bakerbotts.com
9 1 0 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (7 1 3) 229- 1 234
Facsimile: (7 1 3) 229-1522

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS STEVEN WEBSTER,
AARON WEBSTER, AND DENNIS WOODS

MEMORANDUM OF ACCEPTANCE
I accepted service 0f a copy of this subpoena on ,
2020.

Print Name:
Title:

Defendants' Motion for Protection-14
RETURN OF SUBPOENA
I ,
am over the age of 18 years. I am not a party in the above

numbered and styled cause 0f action. On , 2020, at o’clock _m.

at ,
within the

County 0f ,
Texas, I served a subpoena of Which this is a true and

correct copy, and tendered any witness fees required by law, on by

personally handing said subpoena and witness fees to the named individual or in accordance with

the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure.

DATED ,
2020

WITNESS FEE: $

PRINTED NAME OF PERSON
SERVING SUBPOENA

Defendants' Motion for Protection-15
EXHIBIT A
Duces Tecum
Instructions:

You are to produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents identiﬁed below.
0f any conﬁdential or sensitive personal information such
Plaintiffs consent herein to redaction
as driver’s license numbers 0r social security numbers. As used herein, the term “You” shall
refer t0 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan Chase”). The relevant time
period is May 1, 2020, until present.

Contestant hereby requests the following documents:

A. Dennis James Rogers, II

1. A11 monthly account statements of Dennis James Rogers, II for the period
May 1, 2020 to present maintained at JPMorgan Chase (the “Rogers
JPMorgan Chase Accounts”).

2. Copies of checks (front and back) reﬂecting payments into or out of any of
the Rogers JPMorgan Chase Accounts, With respect t0 any accounts
maintained by JPMorgan Chase for the period May 1, 2020 t0 present.

3. Documents reﬂecting, evidencing, or relating to the following for the
periodMay 1, 2020 to present:

a. ACH transfers t0 0r from any of the Rogers JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

b. Wire transfers to or from any of the Rogers JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

c. EFT transfers to 0r from any 0f the Rogers JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

d. of ﬁmds t0 or from any of the Rogers
Inter-bank transfers
JPMorgan Chase Accounts; and

e. Any other form of electronic or digital transfer 0f ﬁlnds from any
of the Rogers JPMorgan Chase Accounts.

4. A11 communications sent t0 or received from Dennis James Rogers, II or
any representative of Dennis James Rogers, II for the period May 1, 2020
to present, including but not limited to e-mails, text messages, letters,
memorandums, written recollections of phone conversations, voicemail
messages, instant messages, 0r other forms of communications, inclusive
of any documents referenced Within the communications.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-16
B. OMTC, Inc.

1. A11 monthly account statements of OMTC, Inc. for the period May 1, 2020
to present maintained at JPMorgan Chase (the “OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts”).

2. Copies 0f checks (front and back) reﬂecting payments into 0r out 0f any of
the OMTC JPMorgan Chase Accounts, with respect t0 any accounts
maintained by JPMorgan Chase for the period May 1, 2020 to present.

3. Documents reﬂecting, evidencing, or relating to the following for the
periodMay 1, 2020 t0 present:

a. ACH transfers t0 or from any of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

b. Wire transfers to 0r from any of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

c. EFT transfers to 01' from any of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase
Accounts;

d. Inter-bank transfers 0f funds t0 0r from any 0f the OMTC
JPMorgan Chase Accounts; and

e. Any other form 0f electronic or digital transfer 0f ﬁmds from any
of the OMTC JPMorgan Chase Accounts.
4. A11 communications sent to 0r received from OMTC, Inc. 0r any
representative 0f OMTC, Inc. for the period May 1, 2020 t0 present,
including but not limited to e-mails, text messages, letters, memorandums,
written recollections of phone conversations, voicemail messages, instant
messages, or other forms of communications, inclusive of any documents
referenced Within the communications.

Defendants' Motion for Protection-17
EXHIBIT B

CAUSE NO. DC-20-10214

Steven Webster, Aaron Webster, and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Dennis Woods, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Dennis J. Rogers, II and OMTC, Inc., §
§
Defendants. § 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF * ____________________ §
§
COUNTY OF * __________________ §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned official, on this day personally appeared

*___________________________________, known to me to be a credible person and whom,

after having been by me first duly sworn, under oath deposed and stated the following:

1. My name is *______________________________. I am over eighteen years old,

I understand the nature of this oath, and I am otherwise competent to testify as to the matters

stated in this Affidavit. This testimony is based on my own personal knowledge and the facts

stated herein are true and correct. I have also personally reviewed each of the documents

attached hereto.

2. I am authorized by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan

Chase”) to make this Affidavit on its behalf.

3. I am the custodian of the records of JPMorgan Chase. Attached hereto are * ____

pages of records from JPMorgan Chase. These said * ____ pages of records are kept by

JPMorgan Chase in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business
11
Defendants' Motion for Protection-18
of JPMorgan Chase for an employee or representative of JPMorgan Chase with knowledge of

the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis, recorded to make the record or to transmit

information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or

reasonably soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the

original.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Executed this the * ____ day of * ____________, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

*____________________________
By: *_________________________
Its: * _________________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by the said * _______________________

this the * ___ day of * ___________, 2020, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

_____________________________
Notary Public In and For Said
County and State

12
Defendants' Motion for Protection-19
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.

Kendall Black on behalf of Meghan McElvy
Bar N0. 24065127
kendall.black@bakerbotts.com
Envelope ID: 45734920
Status as of 8/26/2020 5:04 PM CST
Associated Case Party: OMTC, INC.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

George Henry Rau 24037335 grau@hennemanrau.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT

Associated Case Party: DENNISJ.ROGERS, ||

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Bradley McMahon Kirklin 24046222 bkirklin@hennemanrau.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Brett Chisum 24082816 bchisum@mccathernlaw.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Meghan McElvy 24065127 meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Margaret Wittenmyer margaretwittenmyer@bakerbotts.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Kevin Kassner kkassner@swenergylaw.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Henri Inocencio hinocencio@swenergylaw.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Corey F.Wehmeyer cwehmeyer@swenergylaw.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Kimberly Hammonds khammonds@hennemanrau.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Meghan DawsonMcElvy meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT
Kendall Black kendall.black@bakerbotts.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT

Associated Case Party: AARON WEBSTER

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Margaret Wittenmyer 241 06593 mlwittenmyer@gmail.com 8/26/2020 5:03:50 PM NOT SENT

Defendants' Motion for Protection-ZO
CAUSE NO. DC-20-10214

Steven Webster, Aaron Webster, and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Dennis Woods,

Plaintiffs,

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Dennis J. Rogers, II and OMTC, Inc.,

Defendants. 19 1 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION PER
SUBPOENA WITH DUCES TECUM TO GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC
PURSUANT TO TEX. R. CIV. P. 205

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Steven Webster, Aaron Webster and Dennis Woods,

Plaintiffs in the above styled case, intend t0 subpoena records 0f Goldman Sachs & CO., LLC

(“Goldman Sachs”) responsive t0 the categories set forth below. Responsive documents are t0

be produced by Goldman Sachs, t0 Santoyo Wehmeyer P.C., 0n 0r before October 5, 2020, at

5:00 p.m. This notice 0f request for production 0f documents per Subpoena Duces Tecum is

being made in compliance with Tex. R. CiV. P. 205.2. Categories 0f documents sought

pursuant t0 the Subpoena Duces Tecum will include the following:

A. Dennis James Rogers, II

1. A11 monthly account statements 0f Dennis James Rogers, II for the period
May 1, 2020 t0 present maintained at Goldman Sachs (the “Rogers
Goldman Sachs Accounts”).

2. Copies 0f checks (front and back) reﬂecting payments into 0r out 0f any 0f
the Rogers Goldman Sachs Accounts, with respect t0 any accounts
maintained by Goldman Sachs for the period May 1, 2020 t0 present.

3. Documents reﬂecting, evidencing, 0r relating t0 the following for the
period May 1, 2020 t0 present:

a. ACH transfers t0 0r from any 0f the Rogers Goldman Sachs
Accounts;

EXHllBIT

B Defendants' Motion for Protection-21
b. Wire transfers t0 0r from any 0f the Rogers Goldman Sachs
Accounts;

c. EFT transfers t0 0r from any 0f the Rogers Goldman Sachs
Accounts;

d. Inter-bank transfers 0f funds t0 0r from any 0f the Rogers
Goldman Sachs Accounts; and

e. Any other form 0f electronic 0r digital transfer 0f funds from any
0f the Rogers Goldman Sachs Accounts.

4. A11 communications sent t0 0r received from Dennis James Rogers, II 0r
any representative 0f Dennis James Rogers, II for the period May 1, 2020
t0 present, including but not limited t0 e-mails, text messages, letters,

memorandums, written recollections 0f phone conversations, voicemail
messages, instant messages, 0r other forms 0f communications, inclusive
0f any documents referenced within the communications.

5. A11 communications sent t0 0r received from Steven Webster, Aaron
Webster, and/or Dennis Woods for the period May 1, 2020 t0 present
concerning Dennis James Rogers, H, OMTC, Inc., 0r wire transfers t0
Steven Webster 0r Dennis Woods, including but not limited t0 e-mails,
text messages, letters, memorandums, written recollections 0f phone
conversations, voicemail messages, instant messages, 0r other forms 0f
communications, inclusive 0f any documents referenced within the
communications.

B. OMTC, Inc.

1. A11 monthly account statements 0f OMTC, Inc., if any, for the period May
1, 2020 t0 present maintained at Goldman Sachs (the “OMTC Goldman

Case Info

Judge

SLAUGHTER, GENA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 05, 2020

Case Filing Date

July 28, 2020

County

Parties

KIRKLIN, BRADLEY M. Attorney for the Defendant
MCELVY, MEGHAN DAWSON Attorney for the Plaintiff
OMTC, INC. Defendant
ROGERS, II, DENNIS J. Defendant
UNDERWOOD, WILLIAM B Attorney for the Defendant
WEBSTER, AARON Plaintiff
WEBSTER, STEVEN Plaintiff
WOODS, DENNIS Plaintiff
Corey Wehmeyer Attorney
Margaret Wittenmyer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
George Rau Attorneys for Defendants
Tina Nguyen Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: STEVEN WEBSTER, et al vs. OMTC, INC., et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties