Preview
FILED
6/29/2022 2:12 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Marissa Gomez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-2 1-04907
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§§§§§§§§§§§§
Plaintiff
v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO,
INDIVIDUALLY
Defendants. 101st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND FOR ENTRY OF MODIFIED
SCHEDULING ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW BNG Management Group, LLC (“BNG”), and moves the Court to continue
this matter and enter an amended scheduling order. In Support of this motion, Plaintiff presents
for the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This case was filed because of a breach of contract by the Defendants. The case was filed on
April 19, 2021.
2. On May 26, 2021, Defendants answered the lawsuit.
3. On June 25, 2021, Plaintiffs served their Required Disclosures, thus starting the discovery
period.
4. On July 6, 2021 Plaintiffs served interrogatories to each of the three (3) Defendants, and a
joint request for production to all three (3) Defendants.
5. On August 6, 2021, Defendants served a 27-page packet of purported responses to the
requests for production and answers to the interrogatories.
None of the three (3) sets of answers to interrogatories were verified. Zero (0) documents
were produced in response to the requests for production.
Defendants responded to almost every single request for production with “to be
supplemented, if any.” Defendants did not answer a single interrogatory, other than to say
“Subject to [the] obj ection[s], to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants.”
On August 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants.
On September 13, 2021 at approximately 3:00PM, the Court held its first hearing on the First
Motion to Compel. The court barely made it into the subject of the hearing because
Defendants complained about conferencing, several of which had already occurred. The
Court ordered the parties to further confer and come back.
10 . On September 29, 2021, the Court held the second hearing on the First Motion to Compel.
The Court made it through a few of the requests, at which point the Court had an emergency
and had to leave so the Court told the Parties it would schedule the continuation of a hearing
in the next week or so.
11. On October 21, 2021, having not heard from the Court, Plaintiff set the third hearing on the
First Motion to Compel for November 17, 2021.
12. On November l, 2021, the Court entered an Order Granting the Motion to Compel,
compelling the documents and information requested. The Order provided Defendants with
fourteen (14) days to comply with the Order.
13. On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff, having received nothing from Defendants since the order,
filed a second motion to compel. The court held hearings on the Second Motion to Compel
on February 14, 2022, and February 21, 2022. At the second hearing, the Court verbally
admonished Defendants and instructed them to comply with the Court’s prior Order.
14. On February 18, 2022, three (3) months after the first order, Defendant supplemented
Tozee’s (one of the Defendants) interrogatories, and the responses to requests for production.
Defendants continued to fail to comply with the Court’s order as documents and answers are
still missing.
15. On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants counsel identifying the errors that
remained in the discovery responses.
16. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel.
17. Plaintiff set the hearing on the motion to compel for July 22, 2022.
18. Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Defendants for July 6, 2022, and July 8, 2022. Defendants
quashed the deposition notices.
19. Plaintiffs have diligently engaged in discovery. However, due to the failure of Defendants to
respond or comply with the court’s order, further time for discovery will be needed.
20. The depositions of Plaintiff and Defendants have not been completed.
21. Following finalization of fact discovery, Plaintiffs need the ability to engage in expert
discovery.
22. There is insufficient time to complete it before trial, which is set in August. Trial is set for
August 9, 2022.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CONTINUAN CE
23. A party requesting additional time for discovery, whether to obtain evidence or testimony, must
fulfill the requirements of TRCP 252 under oath. Verkz'n v. Southwest Ctr. One, Ltd., 784
S.W.2d, 92, 94 (Tex. App. — Houston [lst Dist.] 1989, writ denied).
24. The motion must describe the specific discovery sought. Wal—Mart Stores Tex., LP v. Crosby,
295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2009, pet. Denied)
25. A party requesting additional time for discovery, Whether to obtain evidence or testimony,
must fiilfill the requirements of TRCP 252 under oath. Verkin v. Southwest Ctr. One, Ltd.,
784 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Tex.App. — Houston [1“ Dist.] 1989, writ denied).1
26. The motion must describe the specific discovery sought. Wal—Mart Stores Tex., LP v.
Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex.App. — Dallas 2009, pet. denied).
27. The motion must describe the procedure for which the discovery will be completed and from
Whom it Will be obtained. See, e.g. State v. Wood Oil Distrib., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865
(Tex. 1 988).
28. The motion should describe the evidence or testimony needed. Wal—Mart Stores, 295 S.W.3d
at 356.
29. The motion must state why the discovery is material. J.E.M v. Fidelity & Cas. C0., 928
S.W.2d 668, 676 (Tex.App. — Houston [13‘ Dist] 1996, no writ).
30. The motion must show due diligence by the party seeking the continuance. Risner v.
McDonald’s Corp, 18 S.W.3d 903, 909 (Tex.App. — Beraumont 2000, pet denied).
31. The motion must state why the discovery wasn’t obtainable earlier. Id. at 909.
32. The motion must state that the evidence can’t be obtained from another source. Verkin, 784
S.W.2d at 94.
33. The motion must state that the continuance is not sought for delay, but so that justice may be
done. TEX. R. CIV. P. 252.
34. If a party shows good cause for a motion for continuance, the trial court should grant a
motion for continuance. Garza v. Serrato, 699 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Tex.App. — San Antonio
1985, writ ref‘d n.r.e). The standard of review on appeal would be abuse of discretion.
1
A verification of Jordan Whiddon, counsel for Plaintiffs, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Additionally, a verification
of approval by Plaintiff BNG Management Group, LLC is also attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.1986)
III. CASE STATUS AND BASIS FOR CONTINUANCE
35. The Plaintiff has yet to finish to finish discovery due to the Defendants’ failure to
Comply with written discovery requests and a Court Order.
36. On November 1, 2021, the Court entered an Order Granting the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel,
compelling the documents and information requested. The Order provided Defendants with
fourteen (14) days to comply with the Order.
37. Defendants did not amend either the interrogatory answers or responses to production Within
the period mandated by the Order. Plaintiff then filed a Second Motion to Compel Discovery
from Defendants on December 8, 2021.
38. Plaintiff s Second Motion to Compel was heard on February 14, 2022. The day of the hearing,
Defendants represented to the Court that they were going to amend and comply that day.
Therefore, the Court rescheduled the hearing for February 21, 2022.
39. On February 14, 2022, Defendants reproduced much of what had already been produced,
removed some documents that had already been produced, and failed to produce many of the
documents requested or fully answer the interrogatories complained of in the Motion
40. On February 18, 2022, four (4) days later, counsel for Defendants served its First Supplement
to Second Amended Response to Plaintiff BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Defendant’s Second Amended Response to Plaintiff‘s First Request for
Production, but specifically captioned the response as having been made by Tozee
Construction, Inc., (“Tozee”) only, instead of “Defendants” which was the case in all previous
discovery responses and responsive pleadings. Attached to these were the documents
Defendants were notified had been removed from the recent amendment.
41. On February 21, 2022, the Court began to go through the remaining issues. Defendants
represented they would produce the documents. The Court admonished Defendants for having
failed to produce the documents and provide the answers for months. The Court ran out of time
and claimed it would review the motion and requests. The proposed order reflecting the Court’s
determination has been on file since then, but hasn’t ever been signed.
42. Even after the admonishment, Defendants’ First Supplement to Second Amended Answers to
Interrogatories and responses to Plaintiff” s Requests for Production remained deficient, so
Plaintiff reached out to Defendant’s counsel Via letter on March 9, 2022, to address the
remaining deficiencies by March 31, 2022.
43. On April 8, 2022, having heard nothing, Plaintiff had to file a third motion to compel which
has not yet been heard.
44. Plaintiff needs the following to be able to prepare for trial:
a. The deposition of Jimmy Cho;
b. The deposition of the corporate representative of Tozee Construction, Inc.;2
c. The deposition of the corporate representative of Giant Blue, Inc.;3
45. Plaintiff is further still missing the following document categories (to the extent they exist):
a. The carrollton mechanic’s lien;
b. The Irving contract;
c. The Dallas contract;
d. The photos that are contained within the text messages exchange by the parties and
others;
2
The areas of inquiry of such a deposition are on file with the Court as they are in the deposition notice attached to
the Motion to Quash the Deposition.
3
The areas of inquiry of such a deposition are on file with the Court as they are in the deposition notice attached to
the Motion to Quash the Deposition.
e. Agreements with subcontractors for work;
f. Payments to subcontractors for work;
g. A list of subcontractors used;
h. Bids from subcontractors;
i. Change orders for the work at the properties;
j. The signed fee agreement with Defendants’ counsel;
k. The fee statements from the work performed by Defendants’ counsel;
l. Licenses showing authority to work;
m. Criminal convictions;
n. Lien releases;
o. Statements made by Plaintiff or Defendants;
p. Photos of the work;
q. Audio recordings;
r. Notes regarding the work or the relationship between the parties;
s. Names of persons with knowledge of relevant facts.
46. Plaintiff has been trying to get the relevant documents described above for almost a year.
Plaintiff has been forced to file three (3) motions to compel. Due to the Court’s busy schedule,
it’s taken around a month each time a hearing is set. Multiple hearings were rescheduled by
the Court. As a result, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain the documents sooner because
Defendants are ignoring a Court Order and have abused discovery.
47. Defendants quashed the party depositions, which have not yet taken place. Plaintiff needs the
deposition because the testimony of Defendants is key to the claims and defenses in this case.
Defendants have been unable to get the depositions sooner because Defendants have refiised
to produce them and are ignoring a Court Order to produce documentary evidence that could
be used at the depositions.
IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
48. Plaintiff requests this continuance so that the Parties can complete discovery.
49. Plaintiff requests this continuance in accordance with the attached Amended Level III
Scheduling Order.
50. This continuance is not sought for delay but so that justice may be done.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this
matter be set for hearing at which time the Court remove this matter from its present August 9,
2022 setting, that the Court enter the attached Amended Level III Scheduling Order, and for such
other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which the Parties may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
SONG WHIDDON, PLLC
/s/ Jordan Whiddon
TAILIM SONG
State Bar No. 00792845
tsong@songwhiddon.com
JORDAN WHIDDON
State Bar No. 240104313
jwhiddon@songwhiddon.com
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 528-8400 Telephone
(214) 528-8402 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
STATE OF TEXAS
£03603
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Jordan
Whiddon, who, being by me duly sworn, on their oath deposed and said that he has read the
foregoing BNG Management Group, LLC’s Motion for Continuance and for Entry of Modified
Scheduling Order, and that every statement contained therein is within his personal knowledge
and is true and correct except as to matters about person with knowledge of relevant facts, trial
witnesses, and legal contentions, or based upon information obtained from other persons.
514 n; , 2022.
My
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, by Jordan Whiddon, thisL
7Wday of
WWW
U
ETARV PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
9"”! YUUANA RAMIREZ
{grim 9NNotary Public, State of Texas
3:"
".Comm Expires 05- 21—2026
_
«Fe:
7‘0?»
"I"! Notary no 129431462
OS'BVW'K
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.
Jordan Whiddon on behalf of Jordan Whiddon
Bar No. 24093350
jwhiddon@tailimsong.com
Envelope ID: 65893028
Status as of 6/29/2022 2:40 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
William Chu wmchulaw@aol.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Jordan Whiddon 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
william Knisley knisley.wmchulaw@gmail.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Law Offices ofWilliam Chu docs.wmchulaw@gmail.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Chris LValentine cvalentine@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Office Efiles wmchulawefile@gmail.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Abigael Campbell acampbell@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 6/29/2022 2:12 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-2 1-04907 BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF §§§§§§§§§§§§ Plaintiff v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants. 101st JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND FOR ENTRY OF MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW BNG Management Group, LLC (“BNG”), and moves the Court to continue this matter and enter an amended scheduling order. In Support of this motion, Plaintiff presents for the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case was filed because of a breach of contract by the Defendants. The case was filed on April 19, 2021. 2. On May 26, 2021, Defendants answered the lawsuit. 3. On June 25, 2021, Plaintiffs served their Required Disclosures, thus starting the discovery period. 4. On July 6, 2021 Plaintiffs served interrogatories to each of the three (3) Defendants, and a joint request for production to all three (3) Defendants. 5. On August 6, 2021, Defendants served a 27-page packet of purported responses to the requests for production and answers to the interrogatories. None of the three (3) sets of answers to interrogatories were verified. Zero (0) documents were produced in response to the requests for production. Defendants responded to almost every single request for production with “to be supplemented, if any.” Defendants did not answer a single interrogatory, other than to say “Subject to [the] obj ection[s], to be supplemented. I do not speak for other co-defendants.” On August 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants. On September 13, 2021 at approximately 3:00PM, the Court held its first hearing on the First Motion to Compel. The court barely made it into the subject of the hearing because Defendants complained about conferencing, several of which had already occurred. The Court ordered the parties to further confer and come back. 10 . On September 29, 2021, the Court held the second hearing on the First Motion to Compel. The Court made it through a few of the requests, at which point the Court had an emergency and had to leave so the Court told the Parties it would schedule the continuation of a hearing in the next week or so. 11. On October 21, 2021, having not heard from the Court, Plaintiff set the third hearing on the First Motion to Compel for November 17, 2021. 12. On November l, 2021, the Court entered an Order Granting the Motion to Compel, compelling the documents and information requested. The Order provided Defendants with fourteen (14) days to comply with the Order. 13. On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff, having received nothing from Defendants since the order, filed a second motion to compel. The court held hearings on the Second Motion to Compel on February 14, 2022, and February 21, 2022. At the second hearing, the Court verbally admonished Defendants and instructed them to comply with the Court’s prior Order. 14. On February 18, 2022, three (3) months after the first order, Defendant supplemented Tozee’s (one of the Defendants) interrogatories, and the responses to requests for production. Defendants continued to fail to comply with the Court’s order as documents and answers are still missing. 15. On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants counsel identifying the errors that remained in the discovery responses. 16. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel. 17. Plaintiff set the hearing on the motion to compel for July 22, 2022. 18. Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Defendants for July 6, 2022, and July 8, 2022. Defendants quashed the deposition notices. 19. Plaintiffs have diligently engaged in discovery. However, due to the failure of Defendants to respond or comply with the court’s order, further time for discovery will be needed. 20. The depositions of Plaintiff and Defendants have not been completed. 21. Following finalization of fact discovery, Plaintiffs need the ability to engage in expert discovery. 22. There is insufficient time to complete it before trial, which is set in August. Trial is set for August 9, 2022. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CONTINUAN CE 23. A party requesting additional time for discovery, whether to obtain evidence or testimony, must fulfill the requirements of TRCP 252 under oath. Verkz'n v. Southwest Ctr. One, Ltd., 784 S.W.2d, 92, 94 (Tex. App. — Houston [lst Dist.] 1989, writ denied). 24. The motion must describe the specific discovery sought. Wal—Mart Stores Tex., LP v. Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2009, pet. Denied) 25. A party requesting additional time for discovery, Whether to obtain evidence or testimony, must fiilfill the requirements of TRCP 252 under oath. Verkin v. Southwest Ctr. One, Ltd., 784 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Tex.App. — Houston [1“ Dist.] 1989, writ denied).1 26. The motion must describe the specific discovery sought. Wal—Mart Stores Tex., LP v. Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex.App. — Dallas 2009, pet. denied). 27. The motion must describe the procedure for which the discovery will be completed and from Whom it Will be obtained. See, e.g. State v. Wood Oil Distrib., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. 1 988). 28. The motion should describe the evidence or testimony needed. Wal—Mart Stores, 295 S.W.3d at 356. 29. The motion must state why the discovery is material. J.E.M v. Fidelity & Cas. C0., 928 S.W.2d 668, 676 (Tex.App. — Houston [13‘ Dist] 1996, no writ). 30. The motion must show due diligence by the party seeking the continuance. Risner v. McDonald’s Corp, 18 S.W.3d 903, 909 (Tex.App. — Beraumont 2000, pet denied). 31. The motion must state why the discovery wasn’t obtainable earlier. Id. at 909. 32. The motion must state that the evidence can’t be obtained from another source. Verkin, 784 S.W.2d at 94. 33. The motion must state that the continuance is not sought for delay, but so that justice may be done. TEX. R. CIV. P. 252. 34. If a party shows good cause for a motion for continuance, the trial court should grant a motion for continuance. Garza v. Serrato, 699 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1985, writ ref‘d n.r.e). The standard of review on appeal would be abuse of discretion. 1 A verification of Jordan Whiddon, counsel for Plaintiffs, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Additionally, a verification of approval by Plaintiff BNG Management Group, LLC is also attached hereto as Exhibit B. Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.1986) III. CASE STATUS AND BASIS FOR CONTINUANCE 35. The Plaintiff has yet to finish to finish discovery due to the Defendants’ failure to Comply with written discovery requests and a Court Order. 36. On November 1, 2021, the Court entered an Order Granting the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, compelling the documents and information requested. The Order provided Defendants with fourteen (14) days to comply with the Order. 37. Defendants did not amend either the interrogatory answers or responses to production Within the period mandated by the Order. Plaintiff then filed a Second Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants on December 8, 2021. 38. Plaintiff s Second Motion to Compel was heard on February 14, 2022. The day of the hearing, Defendants represented to the Court that they were going to amend and comply that day. Therefore, the Court rescheduled the hearing for February 21, 2022. 39. On February 14, 2022, Defendants reproduced much of what had already been produced, removed some documents that had already been produced, and failed to produce many of the documents requested or fully answer the interrogatories complained of in the Motion 40. On February 18, 2022, four (4) days later, counsel for Defendants served its First Supplement to Second Amended Response to Plaintiff BNG Management Group, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant’s Second Amended Response to Plaintiff‘s First Request for Production, but specifically captioned the response as having been made by Tozee Construction, Inc., (“Tozee”) only, instead of “Defendants” which was the case in all previous discovery responses and responsive pleadings. Attached to these were the documents Defendants were notified had been removed from the recent amendment. 41. On February 21, 2022, the Court began to go through the remaining issues. Defendants represented they would produce the documents. The Court admonished Defendants for having failed to produce the documents and provide the answers for months. The Court ran out of time and claimed it would review the motion and requests. The proposed order reflecting the Court’s determination has been on file since then, but hasn’t ever been signed. 42. Even after the admonishment, Defendants’ First Supplement to Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories and responses to Plaintiff” s Requests for Production remained deficient, so Plaintiff reached out to Defendant’s counsel Via letter on March 9, 2022, to address the remaining deficiencies by March 31, 2022. 43. On April 8, 2022, having heard nothing, Plaintiff had to file a third motion to compel which has not yet been heard. 44. Plaintiff needs the following to be able to prepare for trial: a. The deposition of Jimmy Cho; b. The deposition of the corporate representative of Tozee Construction, Inc.;2 c. The deposition of the corporate representative of Giant Blue, Inc.;3 45. Plaintiff is further still missing the following document categories (to the extent they exist): a. The carrollton mechanic’s lien; b. The Irving contract; c. The Dallas contract; d. The photos that are contained within the text messages exchange by the parties and others; 2 The areas of inquiry of such a deposition are on file with the Court as they are in the deposition notice attached to the Motion to Quash the Deposition. 3 The areas of inquiry of such a deposition are on file with the Court as they are in the deposition notice attached to the Motion to Quash the Deposition. e. Agreements with subcontractors for work; f. Payments to subcontractors for work; g. A list of subcontractors used; h. Bids from subcontractors; i. Change orders for the work at the properties; j. The signed fee agreement with Defendants’ counsel; k. The fee statements from the work performed by Defendants’ counsel; l. Licenses showing authority to work; m. Criminal convictions; n. Lien releases; o. Statements made by Plaintiff or Defendants; p. Photos of the work; q. Audio recordings; r. Notes regarding the work or the relationship between the parties; s. Names of persons with knowledge of relevant facts. 46. Plaintiff has been trying to get the relevant documents described above for almost a year. Plaintiff has been forced to file three (3) motions to compel. Due to the Court’s busy schedule, it’s taken around a month each time a hearing is set. Multiple hearings were rescheduled by the Court. As a result, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain the documents sooner because Defendants are ignoring a Court Order and have abused discovery. 47. Defendants quashed the party depositions, which have not yet taken place. Plaintiff needs the deposition because the testimony of Defendants is key to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendants have been unable to get the depositions sooner because Defendants have refiised to produce them and are ignoring a Court Order to produce documentary evidence that could be used at the depositions. IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 48. Plaintiff requests this continuance so that the Parties can complete discovery. 49. Plaintiff requests this continuance in accordance with the attached Amended Level III Scheduling Order. 50. This continuance is not sought for delay but so that justice may be done. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this matter be set for hearing at which time the Court remove this matter from its present August 9, 2022 setting, that the Court enter the attached Amended Level III Scheduling Order, and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which the Parties may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, SONG WHIDDON, PLLC /s/ Jordan Whiddon TAILIM SONG State Bar No. 00792845 tsong@songwhiddon.com JORDAN WHIDDON State Bar No. 240104313 jwhiddon@songwhiddon.com 8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480 Dallas, Texas 75251 (214) 528-8400 Telephone (214) 528-8402 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF TEXAS £03603 COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Jordan Whiddon, who, being by me duly sworn, on their oath deposed and said that he has read the foregoing BNG Management Group, LLC’s Motion for Continuance and for Entry of Modified Scheduling Order, and that every statement contained therein is within his personal knowledge and is true and correct except as to matters about person with knowledge of relevant facts, trial witnesses, and legal contentions, or based upon information obtained from other persons. 514 n; , 2022. My SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, by Jordan Whiddon, thisL 7Wday of WWW U ETARV PUBLIC My Commission Expires: 9"”! YUUANA RAMIREZ {grim 9NNotary Public, State of Texas 3:" ".Comm Expires 05- 21—2026 _ «Fe: 7‘0?» "I"! Notary no 129431462 OS'BVW'K 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. Jordan Whiddon on behalf of Jordan Whiddon Bar No. 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com Envelope ID: 65893028 Status as of 6/29/2022 2:40 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status William Chu wmchulaw@aol.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Jordan Whiddon 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT william Knisley knisley.wmchulaw@gmail.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Law Offices ofWilliam Chu docs.wmchulaw@gmail.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Chris LValentine cvalentine@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Office Efiles wmchulawefile@gmail.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT Abigael Campbell acampbell@tailimsong.com 6/29/2022 2:12:51 PM SENT