Preview
FILED
11/16/2023 2:16 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Marissa Gomez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-075 34
BERNARD TUBEILEH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§
et a1.
Plaintiffs
V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, et a1.
Defendants 68m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Non-party TransGlobal Technologies, Inc. files this Motion t0 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, “M3, and in support thereof shows the Court as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY
1. The Court should enter a protective order and quash the Subpoena issued to
Movant because Global failed to properly serve it in accordance with Texas law. 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.
II.
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 OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 1
3. Although Global failed to serve the Subpoena in accordance with Texas law, the
Subpoena purports to command Movant to produce the following by November 13, 20231:
1.All Documents concerning Tubeileh.
2. All Communications between You and Tubeileh.
3. All Documents concerning Global AG.
4. All Communications between You and Global AG.
5. All Documents concerning Global Oklahoma.
6. All Communications between You and Global Oklahoma.
7. All Documents concerning Global Texas.
8. All Communications between You and Global Texas.
9. 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.
13. All Documents concerning Jamalabox.
14. All Communications between You and J amalabox.
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.
See Subpoena, Exhibit “A” attached.
4. 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.
5. A search of Global’s First Amended Counterclaim reveals zero mentions of
Movant.
6. 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.
1
The Subpoena was not delivered by process server and was merely mailed to a business address, where it was
received on or about November 1 1, 2023. Although Movant has not been properly served with the Subpoena, it files
this Motion to Quash in an abundance of caution to preserve its rights under Texas law.
MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 2
III.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
A. Globally improperly issued a Subpoena to Movant and failed to meet the
requirements for service of process under Texas law.
7. The Court should issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena because Global
failed to serve it in accordance with Texas law. Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
A subpoena may be served at any place within the State of Texas by any sheriff or
constable of the State of Texas, or any person who is not a party and is 18 years of age
or older. A subpoena must be served by delivering a copy to the witness and tendering
to that person any fees required by law.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.5(a).
8. The Subpoena was not delivered by process server and was merely mailed to a
business address, where it was received on or about November 11, 2023. Although Movant has
not been properly served with the Subpoena, it files this Motion to Quash in an abundance of
caution to preserve its rights under Texas law.
B. The Court should further quash the Subpoena because it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome and seeks irrelevant information.
9. 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
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).
10. 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,
MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 3
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.” Id. The Subpoena
contains a number of requests to produce “[a]ll Documents concerning” a number of entities and
individuals, without any limiting terms (for example, “[a]11 Documents concerning Sinostar
99 ‘6
Investments[,] [a]11 Documents concerning GmbH[,]” etc.). These requests are improper and
should be quashed.
11. 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. In 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,
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.
l2. 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
MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 4
identify the relevance of the broad categon'es 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.
13. 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
14. 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,
AAA—t
Gene A. Hamm II
SBOT # 00795405
John P. Martin
SBOT # 24074657
THE HAMM FIRM
1333 W. McDermott, Suite 200
Allen, Texas 75013
Main: 469.656.1593
eFax: 469.656.1594
ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY
TRANSGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.00X.04.05.0 Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Via Texas eServe on
the day of November, 2023 to the following:
Joshua L. Fellenbaum (admitted pro hac vice)
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue Suite 1100
Cleveland, 0H 441 13
ioshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com
Christopher M. Staine
CROWE & DUNLEVY
2525 McKinnon St., Ste. 425
Dallas, TX 75201
Christopher.staine@crowedunlevv.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
AAA—t
Gene A. Hamm II
MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 6
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 ll on behalf of Gene Hamm ||
Bar No. 00795405
ghamm@hammfirm.com
Envelope ID: 81722711
Filing Code Description: Motion - Quash
Filing Description:
Status as of 11/16/2023 2:38 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Gene AHamm ||
ghamm@hammfirm.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
John PMartin jmartin@hammfirm.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Stephanie Rzepka stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Sarah Prince sarah.prince@crowedunlevy.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Joshua Fellenbaum joshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Elizabeth Palmer empalmer9009@gmail.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: BERNARD TUBEILEH
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brian PLauten blauten@brianlauten.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Michelle Logan mlogan@brianlauten.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Courtney GBowline cbowline@brianlauten.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Christopher Staine Christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Michael C.Zellers michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Jeffrey C.Sindelar Jr. jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
WILLIAM STAVOLE MELISSA.KELLY@TUCKERELLIS.COM 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Melissa Z.Kelly Melissa.Kelly@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
William Stavole william.stavole@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Gene Hamm ll on behalf of Gene Hamm ||
Bar No. 00795405
ghamm@hammfirm.com
Envelope ID: 81722711
Filing Code Description: Motion - Quash
Filing Description:
Status as of 11/16/2023 2:38 PM CST
Associated Case Party: WILLIAM J. STAVOLE
Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status
William Stavole william.stavole@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 11/16/2023 2:16 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-075 34 BERNARD TUBEILEH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§ et a1. Plaintiffs V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, et a1. Defendants 68m JUDICIAL DISTRICT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Non-party TransGlobal Technologies, Inc. files this Motion t0 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, “M3, and in support thereof shows the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY 1. The Court should enter a protective order and quash the Subpoena issued to Movant because Global failed to properly serve it in accordance with Texas law. 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. II. 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 OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 1 3. Although Global failed to serve the Subpoena in accordance with Texas law, the Subpoena purports to command Movant to produce the following by November 13, 20231: 1.All Documents concerning Tubeileh. 2. All Communications between You and Tubeileh. 3. All Documents concerning Global AG. 4. All Communications between You and Global AG. 5. All Documents concerning Global Oklahoma. 6. All Communications between You and Global Oklahoma. 7. All Documents concerning Global Texas. 8. All Communications between You and Global Texas. 9. 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. 13. All Documents concerning Jamalabox. 14. All Communications between You and J amalabox. 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. See Subpoena, Exhibit “A” attached. 4. 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. 5. A search of Global’s First Amended Counterclaim reveals zero mentions of Movant. 6. 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. 1 The Subpoena was not delivered by process server and was merely mailed to a business address, where it was received on or about November 1 1, 2023. Although Movant has not been properly served with the Subpoena, it files this Motion to Quash in an abundance of caution to preserve its rights under Texas law. MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 2 III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES A. Globally improperly issued a Subpoena to Movant and failed to meet the requirements for service of process under Texas law. 7. The Court should issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena because Global failed to serve it in accordance with Texas law. Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, A subpoena may be served at any place within the State of Texas by any sheriff or constable of the State of Texas, or any person who is not a party and is 18 years of age or older. A subpoena must be served by delivering a copy to the witness and tendering to that person any fees required by law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.5(a). 8. The Subpoena was not delivered by process server and was merely mailed to a business address, where it was received on or about November 11, 2023. Although Movant has not been properly served with the Subpoena, it files this Motion to Quash in an abundance of caution to preserve its rights under Texas law. B. The Court should further quash the Subpoena because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. 9. 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 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). 10. 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, MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 3 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.” Id. The Subpoena contains a number of requests to produce “[a]ll Documents concerning” a number of entities and individuals, without any limiting terms (for example, “[a]11 Documents concerning Sinostar 99 ‘6 Investments[,] [a]11 Documents concerning GmbH[,]” etc.). These requests are improper and should be quashed. 11. 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. In 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, 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. l2. 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 MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 4 identify the relevance of the broad categon'es 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. 13. 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 14. 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, AAA—t Gene A. Hamm II SBOT # 00795405 John P. Martin SBOT # 24074657 THE HAMM FIRM 1333 W. McDermott, Suite 200 Allen, Texas 75013 Main: 469.656.1593 eFax: 469.656.1594 ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY TRANSGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.00X.04.05.0 Page 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Via Texas eServe on the day of November, 2023 to the following: Joshua L. Fellenbaum (admitted pro hac vice) TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue Suite 1100 Cleveland, 0H 441 13 ioshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com Christopher M. Staine CROWE & DUNLEVY 2525 McKinnon St., Ste. 425 Dallas, TX 75201 Christopher.staine@crowedunlevv.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 AAA—t Gene A. Hamm II MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER T30XX.OOX.04.05.0 Page 6 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 ll on behalf of Gene Hamm || Bar No. 00795405 ghamm@hammfirm.com Envelope ID: 81722711 Filing Code Description: Motion - Quash Filing Description: Status as of 11/16/2023 2:38 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Gene AHamm || ghamm@hammfirm.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT John PMartin jmartin@hammfirm.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Stephanie Rzepka stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Sarah Prince sarah.prince@crowedunlevy.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Joshua Fellenbaum joshua.fellenbaum@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Elizabeth Palmer empalmer9009@gmail.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Associated Case Party: BERNARD TUBEILEH Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brian PLauten blauten@brianlauten.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Michelle Logan mlogan@brianlauten.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Courtney GBowline cbowline@brianlauten.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Associated Case Party: GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Christopher Staine Christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Michael C.Zellers michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Jeffrey C.Sindelar Jr. jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT WILLIAM STAVOLE MELISSA.KELLY@TUCKERELLIS.COM 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Melissa Z.Kelly Melissa.Kelly@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT William Stavole william.stavole@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Gene Hamm ll on behalf of Gene Hamm || Bar No. 00795405 ghamm@hammfirm.com Envelope ID: 81722711 Filing Code Description: Motion - Quash Filing Description: Status as of 11/16/2023 2:38 PM CST Associated Case Party: WILLIAM J. STAVOLE Name BarNumber Email Timestam pSubmitted Status William Stavole william.stavole@tuckerellis.com 11/16/2023 2:16:13 PM SENT