Preview
FILED
11/10/2023 3:58 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Marissa Gomez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534
BERNARD TUBEILEH, et al. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs
Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, et al.
Defendants 68" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Non-party Balu Prabhakar (“Movant”) files this Motion to Quash Subpoena and for
Protective Order, requesting that the Court enter a protective order and quash the subpoena
issued by defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma,
LLC (collectively, “Global’”), and in support thereof shows the Court as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY
1 Movant is an individual non-party without any documents or information relevant
to this lawsuit in his possession, custody or control. The Court should enter a protective order
and quash the Subpoena issued to Movant because he has no responsive documents and Global
improperly served him in his individual capacity. Furthermore, the Subpoena is substantially
overbroad and constitutes a fishing expedition, granting additional support for an order quashing
it. For these and all the reasons below, Movant asks the Court to quash the Subpoena.
I.
BACKGROUND
2. On October 30, 2023, Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields
Oklahoma, LLC (collectively, the “Global Parties”) issued a subpoena addressed to Movant (the
“Subpoena”). See Subpoena, Exhibit “A” attached.
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page|
3 The Subpoena purports to command Movant to produce the following by
November 13, 2023:
All Documents concerning Tubeileh.
All Communications between You and Tubeileh.
All Documents concerning Global AG.
All Communications between You and Global AG.
All Documents concerning Global Oklahoma.
All Communications between You and Global Oklahoma.
All Documents concerning Global Texas.
All Communications between You and Global Texas.
All Documents concerning Sinostar Investments.
All Communications between You and Sinostar Investments.
All Documents concerning Sinostar GmbH.
All Communications between You and Sinostar GmbH.
All Documents concerning Jamalabox.
All Communications between You and Jamalabox.
All Documents concerning Louisiana Offshore.
All Communications between You and Louisiana Offshore.
All Documents concerning Billy Huddleston.
All Communications between You and Billy Huddleston.
See Subpoena, Exhibit “A” attached.
4 Movant has no relevant documents in his individual capacity. Any even
potentially relevant or discoverable information! would be in the possession of TGT, LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Trans Global Technologies, Inc. Yet Global issued the Subpoena to
Movant in his individual capacity only; the improper nature of the Subpoena requires the Court
to issue a protective order quashing it.
5 Further, the Subpoena is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information and/or
privileged documents. Movant is not a party to this proceeding; even if issued to a party,
however, it would be burdensome.
6 A search of Global’s First Amended Counterclaim reveals zero mentions of
Movant and/or TGT, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Trans Global Technologies, Inc.
| Movant contests the discoverability of any of the requested information.
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 2
7 Under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176 and 192.6, Movant moves for a
protective order that the requested discovery not be had and that the Court quash the subpoena.
Hil.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
A. Globally improperly issued a Subpoena to Movant in his individual capacity, and
Movant cannot be compelled to produce documents are held by a corporate entity.
8 The Court should issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena because Global
improperly issued it to Movant in his individual capacity, and he cannot be compelled to produce
documents in the possession of a corporate entity. In the case of Jn re Kuntz, the Texas Supreme
Court held that an individual's mere ability to access documents does not constitute “possession,
custody, or control” under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore the individual
cannot be compelled to produce the documents. Jn re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 183-84 (Tex.
2003). Moreover, “mere access to the relevant [documents] does not constitute ‘physical
possession’ of the documents under the definition of ‘possession, custody, or control’ set forth in
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.7(b).” Jd. at 184.
9 Movant does not possess any relevant documents in his individual capacity, and
any even potentially relevant or discoverable information? would be in the possession of TGT,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Trans Global Technologies, Inc. Global improperly issued
the Subpoena to Movant in his individual capacity only, and the Court should issue a protective
order quashing it on that basis.
B. The Court should further quash the Subpoena because it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome and seeks irrelevant information.
10. The Subpoena should be quashed because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and seeks information beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Under Texas law, discovery
? Movant contests the discoverability of any of the requested information.
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 3
served on both parties and non-parties must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, not be overly broad, seek only information that is not privileged and
relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, and not cause undue burden or harassment. See,
e.g, Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3; Martin v. Khoury, 843 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1992); In re
Mallinckrodt, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2008).
le The discovery requests contained in the Subpoena violate Texas law because they
are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are overly broad,
irrelevant and cause undue burden and harassment. A “request for all documents” related to a
subject matter, “without limitation as to time, place or subject matter, is overbroad.” Texaco Inc.
v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (emphasis added). Such a request, without
tailoring towards relevant issues, time, or subject matter, “is not merely an impermissible fishing
expedition; it is an effort to dredge the lake in hopes of finding a fish.” /d. The Subpoena
contains a number of requests to produce “[a]ll1 Documents concerning” a number of entities and
individuals, without any limiting terms (for example, “[a]ll Documents concerning Sinostar
Investments[,]” “[a]ll Documents concerning GmbH[,]” etc.). These requests are improper and
should be quashed.
12. Further, the requests fail to use the least obtrusive means in obtaining documents,
violating the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (for example, seeking “[a]ll communications
between You and Tubeileh[,]” which should include documents in Tubeileh’s possession).
Documents like this should be obtained by request for production to Tubeileh without burdening
a non-party. Texas law requires a party to use the least intrusive means necessary to obtain
discoverable documents. Jn re Titus Cnty., 412 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Tex. App. 2013) (“information
that might be obtained from William D. Priefert, if any, can be obtained from a less intrusive,
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 4
less burdensome means”). Global has not shown that it has made efforts to obtain the requested
documents directly from parties to the case. The Subpoena should be quashed on this basis as
well.
13. Lastly, the requests fail to include any limiting terms or conditions tailoring the
requests to the transactions at dispute in the litigation, including the timeframes of the
transactions at issue, most of which are after Tubeileh resigned in May 2023. See Global’s First
Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses, filed Oct. 13, 2023, par. 47. Global’s requests fail to
identify the relevance of the broad categories of requested information to the claims at issue. For
these and all the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant a protective order quashing the
Subpoena to Movant.
14. A trial court has discretion to grant protective orders. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b).
The Court should issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena because it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information beyond the scope of permissible discovery.
Iv.
CONCLUSION
1S. For these reasons, Movant asks the Court to grant a protective order quashing the
Subpoena and granting any other relief to which Movant is entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
\ —\\—+
Gene A. Hamm II
SBOT # 00795405
John P. Martin
SBOT # 24074657
THE HAMM FIRM
1333 W. McDermott, Suite 200
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 5
Allen, Texas 75013
Main: 469.656.1593
eFax: 469.656.1594
ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY BALU
PRABHAKAR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing via Texas eServe on
the 10" day of November, 2023 to the following:
Joshua L. Fellenbaum (admitted pro hac vice)
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
joshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com
Christopher M. Staine
CROWE & DUNLEVY
2525 McKinnon St., Ste. 425
Dallas, TX 75201
christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com
ATTORNEYS FOR GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC
AND GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA, LLC
Brian P. Lauten
Brian Lauten, P.C.
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
blauten@brianlauten.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BERNARD TUBEILEH
AND SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC
\ —\—~
Gene A. Hamm II
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 6
EXHIBIT “A”
CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534
BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
PLAINTIFFS
¥. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET
2
DEFENDANTS 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRCT
and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET
2
COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS
Vv,
BERNARD TUBEILEH AND SINOSTAR §
INVESTMENTS LLC
§
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS 8
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
To: Balu Prabhakar; 6407 Wrenwood Drive, #0; Dallas, TX 75252-2525
GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce and permit
inspection and copying of the following documents or tangible things in your possession,
custody, or control: all documents listed in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
You may comply with this subpoena by producing copies of the requested
documents by November 13, 2023, at 5:00 PM (Central Time)! at Crowe &
DUNLEVY, P.C., Attn: Christopher M. Staine, 2525 McKinnon Avenue, Suite 425, Dallas,
1 Please consu
the definitions
lt in Exhi
1 before bit
preparing your response to this subpoena.
Pages
Texas 75201, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree in writing. In order
to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not
produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until
the court rules on the objection. You do not need to appear in person at the designated
place of production to comply with this subpoena.
FAILURE OF ANY PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE TO OBEY A
SUBPOENA SERVED UPON THAT PERSON MAY BE DEEMED A CONTEMPT
OF COURT FROM WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED OR A DISTRICT
COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS SERVED, AND MAY
BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR CONFINEMENT, OR BOTH.
Page2
Issued: October 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joshua L. Fellenbaum
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
Joshua L. Fellenbaum (pro hac vice)
Michael C. Zellers (pro hac vice)
Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. (pro hac vice)
Stephanie A. Rzepka (Tx. State Bar No. 24102442)
950 Main Avenue Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: 216.592.5000
Fax: 216.592.5009
E-mail: joshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com
michael .zellers@tuckerellis.com
jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com
stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com
and
Christopher M. Staine
Texas State Bar No. 24104576
CROWE & DUNLEVY
2525 McKinnon St., Ste. 425
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 420-2143
(214) 736-1763 (Fax)
christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com
ATTORNEYS FOR GLOBAL OIL & GAS
TEXAS, LLC AND GLOBAL OIL & GAS
FIELDS OKLAHOMA, LLC
Pages
EXHIBIT 1
I. Definitions
In responding to the Subpoena, the following definitions apply:
db “You,” “yours,” “your,” “yourself,” and “Prabhakar,” refer to Balu
Prabhakar, who is the recipient of this Subpoena and located at 6407
Wrenwood Drive, #0; Dallas, TX 75252-2525.
“Global Texas” means Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and any and all agents,
representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or
representing it in any capacity.
“Global Oklahoma” means Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC and any
and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its
control or representing it in any capacity
“Global AG” means Global Oil & Gas AG and any and all agents,
representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or
representing it in any capacity or for any purpose.
“Jamalabox” means Jamalabox LLC and any and all agents,
representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or
representing it in any capacity or for any purpose.
“Tubeileh” means Bernard Tubeileh, and any and all agents,
representatives, or other persons subject to his control or representing
him in any capacity or for any purpose.
“Sinostar Investments” means Sinostar Investments LLC and any and all
agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control
or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose.
“Sinostar GmbH” means Sinostar Star Investments GmbH and any and all
agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control
or representing it any capacity or for any purpose.
“Louisiana Offshore” means Louisiana Offshore Exploration, LLC and any
and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its
control or representing it any capacity or for any purpose.
10. “Document” means all originals and non-identical copies of any papers,
books, accounts, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone
records, recordings, compact discs, other data compilations from which
information can be obtained and translated, if necessary, by you through
Page 6
detection devices into reasonably usable form, and tangible things. As
used herein, the term “document” or “documents” includes without
limitation the following items regardless of origin or location, whether
printed or recorded or filmed or reproduced by any other mechanical
process, or written or produced by hand, whether or not claimed to be
privileged against discovery on any ground, and whether an original,
master or copy, namely: contracts, letters, correspondence, cablegrams,
telegrams, telexes, communications, intra~-company communications,
telephone records and notations, meeting and conference minutes,
notations and lists of persons attending, invoices, work orders, summaries
and records of personal conversations or interviews, ledgers, journals and
other formal or informal books of record and account, books, manuals,
publications and diaries, laboratory and engineering reports and
notebooks, blueprints, charts, plans, sketches, drawings, photographs,
reports and/or summaries of investigations, opinions and reports of
consultants; computer data, computer printouts, computer programs,
electronic mail, tape recordings, video recordings, bulletins, instructions,
financial statements, reports, memoranda, notes, copies of reproductions
of the foregoing upon which notations in writing have been made which do
not appear on the originals, and any other information containing writing,
paper or tangible items in the possession, custody or control of Prabhakar
or Prabhakar’s attorneys.
iL, “Computer-based information.” In those instances when requested
information is stored only on software or other data compilations, the
responding party should either produce the raw data along with all codes
and programs for translating it into usable form, or produce the
information in a finished usable form that includes all necessary
glossaries, keys, and indices for interpretation of the material.
12, The word “or” is inclusive and means any one or more of the disjoined
words or phrases and the terms “any and all” include each and every.
13 “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture,
association, corporation, or any other type of entity.
14. “Concerning” or “concern” means embodying, pertaining to, reflecting,
involving, constituting, comprising, discussing, evidencing, relating to,
consisting of, or having any logical or factual connection whatsoever with
the subject matter in question.
“Communications,” as used herein, means and includes a face-to-face
meeting or a communication by means of a telephone, radio, or other
similar means of verbal transmission of information, as well as all forms of
written communication, including email, facsimile, text messages, direct
messages, and other electronic means of communication.
Page 7
16. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice
versa.
IL. Relevant Time Period
Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period covered by the requests
below is from January 1, 2017 to the present.
Ill. Instructions
In addition to the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which are
incorporated herein, the following instructions apply to the requests set forth below:
L If you cannot answer the following requests in full after exercising due
diligence to secure the full information to do so, so state and answer to the
extent possible, specifying your inability to answer the remainder, and
state whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the
unanswered portion.
If you claim that any Document, Communication, or other matter is
privileged or subject to the work-product doctrine, for each such
Document, Communication, or other matter, state the following:
a. the type of Document (e.g., letter, financial record, memorandum,
etc.);
its date, if any;
its title, if any;
its originator, if any;
its addressee, if any;
its present location;
the person or persons having possession, custody, or control of it;
and
h. the facts and circumstances that you contend create a privilege or
work product protection.
3: If any of the Documents responsive to any of these requests have been
destroyed, or are otherwise no longer in your possession, custody, or
control, you are requested to identify the Document in the same manner as
identification is requested for Documents claimed to be privileged or
subject to work-product doctrine.
‘These requests shall be deemed continuing in nature and must be
supplemented in the manner required by the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Court’s rules. You shall file amended or additional
answers should different, more complete, or more current information
Page
come to your attention rendering your prior answers incomplete or
inaccurate.
Iv. Requests for Production
1 All Documents concerning Tubeileh.
2. All Communications between You and Tubeileh.
All Documents concerning Global AG.
All Communications between You and Global AG.
All Documents concerning Global Oklahoma.
All Communications between You and Global Oklahoma.
All Documents concerning Global Texas.
8. All Communications between You and Global Texas.
All Documents concerning Sinostar Investments.
10. All Communications between You and Sinostar Investments.
11 All Documents concerning Sinostar GmbH.
12. All Communications between You and Sinostar GmbH.
All Documents concerning Jamalabox.
14. All Communications between You and Jamalabox.
15 All Documents concerning Louisiana Offshore.
16. All Communications between You and Louisiana Offshore.
17. All Documents concerning Billy Huddleston.
18. All Communications between You and Billy Huddleston.
Page
5458172.v1
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.
Gene Hamm II on behalf of Gene Hamm II
Bar No. 00795405
ghamm@hammfirm.com
Envelope ID: 81533283
Filing Code Description: Motion - Quash
Filing Description: SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Status as of 11/13/2023 8:42 AM CST
Associated Case Party: BERNARD TUBEILEH
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brian PLauten blauten@brianlauten.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Michelle Logan mlogan@brianlauten.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Courtney GBowline cbowline@brianlauten.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Stephanie Rzepka stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Sarah Prince sarah.prince@crowedunlevy.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Joshua Fellenbaum joshua.fellenbaum @tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Gene AHamm II ghamm@hammfirm.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
John PMartin jmartin@hammfirm.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Christopher Staine christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Michael C.Zellers michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Jeffrey C.Sindelar Jr. jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
WILLIAM STAVOLE MELISSA.KELLY@TUCKERELLIS.COM 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Melissa Z.Kelly Melissa.Kelly@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 11/10/2023 3:58 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH, et al. IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, et al. Defendants 68" JUDICIAL DISTRICT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Non-party Balu Prabhakar (“Movant”) files this Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, requesting that the Court enter a protective order and quash the subpoena issued by defendants Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma, LLC (collectively, “Global’”), and in support thereof shows the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY 1 Movant is an individual non-party without any documents or information relevant to this lawsuit in his possession, custody or control. The Court should enter a protective order and quash the Subpoena issued to Movant because he has no responsive documents and Global improperly served him in his individual capacity. Furthermore, the Subpoena is substantially overbroad and constitutes a fishing expedition, granting additional support for an order quashing it. For these and all the reasons below, Movant asks the Court to quash the Subpoena. I. BACKGROUND 2. On October 30, 2023, Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma, LLC (collectively, the “Global Parties”) issued a subpoena addressed to Movant (the “Subpoena”). See Subpoena, Exhibit “A” attached. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page| 3 The Subpoena purports to command Movant to produce the following by November 13, 2023: All Documents concerning Tubeileh. All Communications between You and Tubeileh. All Documents concerning Global AG. All Communications between You and Global AG. All Documents concerning Global Oklahoma. All Communications between You and Global Oklahoma. All Documents concerning Global Texas. All Communications between You and Global Texas. All Documents concerning Sinostar Investments. All Communications between You and Sinostar Investments. All Documents concerning Sinostar GmbH. All Communications between You and Sinostar GmbH. All Documents concerning Jamalabox. All Communications between You and Jamalabox. All Documents concerning Louisiana Offshore. All Communications between You and Louisiana Offshore. All Documents concerning Billy Huddleston. All Communications between You and Billy Huddleston. See Subpoena, Exhibit “A” attached. 4 Movant has no relevant documents in his individual capacity. Any even potentially relevant or discoverable information! would be in the possession of TGT, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Trans Global Technologies, Inc. Yet Global issued the Subpoena to Movant in his individual capacity only; the improper nature of the Subpoena requires the Court to issue a protective order quashing it. 5 Further, the Subpoena is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information and/or privileged documents. Movant is not a party to this proceeding; even if issued to a party, however, it would be burdensome. 6 A search of Global’s First Amended Counterclaim reveals zero mentions of Movant and/or TGT, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Trans Global Technologies, Inc. | Movant contests the discoverability of any of the requested information. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 2 7 Under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176 and 192.6, Movant moves for a protective order that the requested discovery not be had and that the Court quash the subpoena. Hil. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES A. Globally improperly issued a Subpoena to Movant in his individual capacity, and Movant cannot be compelled to produce documents are held by a corporate entity. 8 The Court should issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena because Global improperly issued it to Movant in his individual capacity, and he cannot be compelled to produce documents in the possession of a corporate entity. In the case of Jn re Kuntz, the Texas Supreme Court held that an individual's mere ability to access documents does not constitute “possession, custody, or control” under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore the individual cannot be compelled to produce the documents. Jn re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 183-84 (Tex. 2003). Moreover, “mere access to the relevant [documents] does not constitute ‘physical possession’ of the documents under the definition of ‘possession, custody, or control’ set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.7(b).” Jd. at 184. 9 Movant does not possess any relevant documents in his individual capacity, and any even potentially relevant or discoverable information? would be in the possession of TGT, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Trans Global Technologies, Inc. Global improperly issued the Subpoena to Movant in his individual capacity only, and the Court should issue a protective order quashing it on that basis. B. The Court should further quash the Subpoena because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. 10. The Subpoena should be quashed because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Under Texas law, discovery ? Movant contests the discoverability of any of the requested information. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 3 served on both parties and non-parties must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, not be overly broad, seek only information that is not privileged and relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, and not cause undue burden or harassment. See, e.g, Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3; Martin v. Khoury, 843 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1992); In re Mallinckrodt, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2008). le The discovery requests contained in the Subpoena violate Texas law because they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are overly broad, irrelevant and cause undue burden and harassment. A “request for all documents” related to a subject matter, “without limitation as to time, place or subject matter, is overbroad.” Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995) (emphasis added). Such a request, without tailoring towards relevant issues, time, or subject matter, “is not merely an impermissible fishing expedition; it is an effort to dredge the lake in hopes of finding a fish.” /d. The Subpoena contains a number of requests to produce “[a]ll1 Documents concerning” a number of entities and individuals, without any limiting terms (for example, “[a]ll Documents concerning Sinostar Investments[,]” “[a]ll Documents concerning GmbH[,]” etc.). These requests are improper and should be quashed. 12. Further, the requests fail to use the least obtrusive means in obtaining documents, violating the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (for example, seeking “[a]ll communications between You and Tubeileh[,]” which should include documents in Tubeileh’s possession). Documents like this should be obtained by request for production to Tubeileh without burdening a non-party. Texas law requires a party to use the least intrusive means necessary to obtain discoverable documents. Jn re Titus Cnty., 412 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Tex. App. 2013) (“information that might be obtained from William D. Priefert, if any, can be obtained from a less intrusive, MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 4 less burdensome means”). Global has not shown that it has made efforts to obtain the requested documents directly from parties to the case. The Subpoena should be quashed on this basis as well. 13. Lastly, the requests fail to include any limiting terms or conditions tailoring the requests to the transactions at dispute in the litigation, including the timeframes of the transactions at issue, most of which are after Tubeileh resigned in May 2023. See Global’s First Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses, filed Oct. 13, 2023, par. 47. Global’s requests fail to identify the relevance of the broad categories of requested information to the claims at issue. For these and all the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant a protective order quashing the Subpoena to Movant. 14. A trial court has discretion to grant protective orders. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b). The Court should issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Iv. CONCLUSION 1S. For these reasons, Movant asks the Court to grant a protective order quashing the Subpoena and granting any other relief to which Movant is entitled. Respectfully submitted, \ —\\—+ Gene A. Hamm II SBOT # 00795405 John P. Martin SBOT # 24074657 THE HAMM FIRM 1333 W. McDermott, Suite 200 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 5 Allen, Texas 75013 Main: 469.656.1593 eFax: 469.656.1594 ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY BALU PRABHAKAR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing via Texas eServe on the 10" day of November, 2023 to the following: Joshua L. Fellenbaum (admitted pro hac vice) TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 joshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com Christopher M. Staine CROWE & DUNLEVY 2525 McKinnon St., Ste. 425 Dallas, TX 75201 christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC AND GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA, LLC Brian P. Lauten Brian Lauten, P.C. 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 blauten@brianlauten.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BERNARD TUBEILEH AND SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC \ —\—~ Gene A. Hamm II MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.01.4 Page 6 EXHIBIT “A” CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PLAINTIFFS ¥. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET 2 DEFENDANTS 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRCT and GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET 2 COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS Vv, BERNARD TUBEILEH AND SINOSTAR § INVESTMENTS LLC § COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS 8 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS THE STATE OF TEXAS To: Balu Prabhakar; 6407 Wrenwood Drive, #0; Dallas, TX 75252-2525 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or tangible things in your possession, custody, or control: all documents listed in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. You may comply with this subpoena by producing copies of the requested documents by November 13, 2023, at 5:00 PM (Central Time)! at Crowe & DUNLEVY, P.C., Attn: Christopher M. Staine, 2525 McKinnon Avenue, Suite 425, Dallas, 1 Please consu the definitions lt in Exhi 1 before bit preparing your response to this subpoena. Pages Texas 75201, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree in writing. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. You do not need to appear in person at the designated place of production to comply with this subpoena. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA SERVED UPON THAT PERSON MAY BE DEEMED A CONTEMPT OF COURT FROM WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED OR A DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS SERVED, AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR CONFINEMENT, OR BOTH. Page2 Issued: October 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joshua L. Fellenbaum TUCKER ELLIS LLP Joshua L. Fellenbaum (pro hac vice) Michael C. Zellers (pro hac vice) Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. (pro hac vice) Stephanie A. Rzepka (Tx. State Bar No. 24102442) 950 Main Avenue Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216.592.5000 Fax: 216.592.5009 E-mail: joshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com michael .zellers@tuckerellis.com jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com and Christopher M. Staine Texas State Bar No. 24104576 CROWE & DUNLEVY 2525 McKinnon St., Ste. 425 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 420-2143 (214) 736-1763 (Fax) christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC AND GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA, LLC Pages EXHIBIT 1 I. Definitions In responding to the Subpoena, the following definitions apply: db “You,” “yours,” “your,” “yourself,” and “Prabhakar,” refer to Balu Prabhakar, who is the recipient of this Subpoena and located at 6407 Wrenwood Drive, #0; Dallas, TX 75252-2525. “Global Texas” means Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity. “Global Oklahoma” means Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity “Global AG” means Global Oil & Gas AG and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose. “Jamalabox” means Jamalabox LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose. “Tubeileh” means Bernard Tubeileh, and any and all agents, representatives, or other persons subject to his control or representing him in any capacity or for any purpose. “Sinostar Investments” means Sinostar Investments LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it in any capacity or for any purpose. “Sinostar GmbH” means Sinostar Star Investments GmbH and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it any capacity or for any purpose. “Louisiana Offshore” means Louisiana Offshore Exploration, LLC and any and all agents, representatives, employees, or other persons subject to its control or representing it any capacity or for any purpose. 10. “Document” means all originals and non-identical copies of any papers, books, accounts, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, recordings, compact discs, other data compilations from which information can be obtained and translated, if necessary, by you through Page 6 detection devices into reasonably usable form, and tangible things. As used herein, the term “document” or “documents” includes without limitation the following items regardless of origin or location, whether printed or recorded or filmed or reproduced by any other mechanical process, or written or produced by hand, whether or not claimed to be privileged against discovery on any ground, and whether an original, master or copy, namely: contracts, letters, correspondence, cablegrams, telegrams, telexes, communications, intra~-company communications, telephone records and notations, meeting and conference minutes, notations and lists of persons attending, invoices, work orders, summaries and records of personal conversations or interviews, ledgers, journals and other formal or informal books of record and account, books, manuals, publications and diaries, laboratory and engineering reports and notebooks, blueprints, charts, plans, sketches, drawings, photographs, reports and/or summaries of investigations, opinions and reports of consultants; computer data, computer printouts, computer programs, electronic mail, tape recordings, video recordings, bulletins, instructions, financial statements, reports, memoranda, notes, copies of reproductions of the foregoing upon which notations in writing have been made which do not appear on the originals, and any other information containing writing, paper or tangible items in the possession, custody or control of Prabhakar or Prabhakar’s attorneys. iL, “Computer-based information.” In those instances when requested information is stored only on software or other data compilations, the responding party should either produce the raw data along with all codes and programs for translating it into usable form, or produce the information in a finished usable form that includes all necessary glossaries, keys, and indices for interpretation of the material. 12, The word “or” is inclusive and means any one or more of the disjoined words or phrases and the terms “any and all” include each and every. 13 “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, or any other type of entity. 14. “Concerning” or “concern” means embodying, pertaining to, reflecting, involving, constituting, comprising, discussing, evidencing, relating to, consisting of, or having any logical or factual connection whatsoever with the subject matter in question. “Communications,” as used herein, means and includes a face-to-face meeting or a communication by means of a telephone, radio, or other similar means of verbal transmission of information, as well as all forms of written communication, including email, facsimile, text messages, direct messages, and other electronic means of communication. Page 7 16. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. IL. Relevant Time Period Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period covered by the requests below is from January 1, 2017 to the present. Ill. Instructions In addition to the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which are incorporated herein, the following instructions apply to the requests set forth below: L If you cannot answer the following requests in full after exercising due diligence to secure the full information to do so, so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying your inability to answer the remainder, and state whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion. If you claim that any Document, Communication, or other matter is privileged or subject to the work-product doctrine, for each such Document, Communication, or other matter, state the following: a. the type of Document (e.g., letter, financial record, memorandum, etc.); its date, if any; its title, if any; its originator, if any; its addressee, if any; its present location; the person or persons having possession, custody, or control of it; and h. the facts and circumstances that you contend create a privilege or work product protection. 3: If any of the Documents responsive to any of these requests have been destroyed, or are otherwise no longer in your possession, custody, or control, you are requested to identify the Document in the same manner as identification is requested for Documents claimed to be privileged or subject to work-product doctrine. ‘These requests shall be deemed continuing in nature and must be supplemented in the manner required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s rules. You shall file amended or additional answers should different, more complete, or more current information Page come to your attention rendering your prior answers incomplete or inaccurate. Iv. Requests for Production 1 All Documents concerning Tubeileh. 2. All Communications between You and Tubeileh. All Documents concerning Global AG. All Communications between You and Global AG. All Documents concerning Global Oklahoma. All Communications between You and Global Oklahoma. All Documents concerning Global Texas. 8. All Communications between You and Global Texas. All Documents concerning Sinostar Investments. 10. All Communications between You and Sinostar Investments. 11 All Documents concerning Sinostar GmbH. 12. All Communications between You and Sinostar GmbH. All Documents concerning Jamalabox. 14. All Communications between You and Jamalabox. 15 All Documents concerning Louisiana Offshore. 16. All Communications between You and Louisiana Offshore. 17. All Documents concerning Billy Huddleston. 18. All Communications between You and Billy Huddleston. Page 5458172.v1 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. Gene Hamm II on behalf of Gene Hamm II Bar No. 00795405 ghamm@hammfirm.com Envelope ID: 81533283 Filing Code Description: Motion - Quash Filing Description: SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Status as of 11/13/2023 8:42 AM CST Associated Case Party: BERNARD TUBEILEH Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brian PLauten blauten@brianlauten.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Michelle Logan mlogan@brianlauten.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Courtney GBowline cbowline@brianlauten.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Stephanie Rzepka stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Sarah Prince sarah.prince@crowedunlevy.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Joshua Fellenbaum joshua.fellenbaum @tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Gene AHamm II ghamm@hammfirm.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT John PMartin jmartin@hammfirm.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Associated Case Party: GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Christopher Staine christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Michael C.Zellers michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Jeffrey C.Sindelar Jr. jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT WILLIAM STAVOLE MELISSA.KELLY@TUCKERELLIS.COM 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT Melissa Z.Kelly Melissa.Kelly@tuckerellis.com 11/10/2023 3:58:48 PM SENT