Preview
FILED
4/22/2024 1:01 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Marissa Gomez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534
BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INVESTMENTS LLC,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS
OKLAHOMA LLC,
Defendants. 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SETS 1-4
I
Summary of Argument
Defendants served four sets of requests for production that are overly broad, not
reasonably tailored, harassing, and seek information that is not relevant to the claims in
this lawsuit and filed a Motion to Compel. At the prior hearing on Defendants’ Motion to
Compel, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs would produce all emails and documents related
to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit, along with all 1099s and W2s from 2017-2023.
The Court issued the agreed Order on March 6, 2024, memorializing the parties’
agreement. Plaintiffs have produced all required documents and emails, as confirmed to
Defendants’ counsel in a phone call on April 5, 2024. In addition, although not required
by the Order, Plaintiffs produced all communications related to the transactions at issue
in the lawsuit. On April 8, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses Pursuant to the Court’s March 6, 2024 Order (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs have
complied with the Court's Order, and Defendants waived all claims against Plaintiffs;
therefore, Defendants’ Motion should be denied in whole.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 1 of 12
I.
Exhibits & Competent Evidenc:
Exhibit A— February 27, 2024 email from J. Sindelar attaching proposed order
February 20, 2024 Order on Defendants’ Motion to Compel regarding
Exhibit B—
Plaintiffs’ Financial Information
February 28, 2024 email from K. Vanstory attaching edits to proposed
Exhibit C—
order
Exhibit D— February 28, 2024 email from J. Sindelar
Exhibit E— March 22, 2024 Letter from C. Bowline producing BT305776-BT317855
Exhibit F— April 3, 2024 Letter from C. Bowline producing BT318348-341729
Exhibit G— April 1, 2024 email from C. Bowline
Exhibit H— April 5, 2024 email from C. Bowline
Exhibit I— April 19, 2024 email from C. Bowline producing BT347610
Exhibit J— April 18, 2024 Letter from C. Bowline producing BT341730-BT347609
Exhibit K— 2019 Employment Agreement
Exhibit L— 2022 Agreement
Exhibit M— April 22, 2024 email from C. Bowline producing BT347611-BT347835
December 30, 2023 Email and Draft Settlement Agreement from Dr. Detlef
Exhibit N—
Mader (BT305279-BT305286)' =
Exhibit 1— Declaration of Bernard Tubeileh
Exhibit 2— Declaration of Courtney Bowline
I.
Facts
Tubeileh worked for Global Oil & Gas AG (“GOGAG’), a German corporation, as
the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Management Board from 2007 through 2015.
Tubeileh worked as the Manager for Defendants in the United States from 2015 until May
2023.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on June 6, 2023, seeking payments due
under the March Sinostar Loan Agreement, the Tubeilen Loan Agreement, the PSA, and
the Agreement, and seeking a declaratory judgment. Defendants answered and made
‘ Plaintiffs have expressly requested the final, executed version of this settlement agreement and
Defendants have failed to produce it. This is the basis of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of
Requests for Production, previously set on April 8, 2024 and reset for hearing on May 13, 2024.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
2 of 12
counterclaims against Plaintiffs, alleging claims for breach of a prior management
agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, theft, conversion, fraudulent inducement, and declaratory judgment.
Pertinent to this Motion, Defendants served four sets of requests for production on
Plaintiffs (the “Requests”). Plaintiffs objected and responded to each request. Although
all of Defendants’ Requests were overly broad, Defendants moved to overrule Plaintiffs’
objections. At the hearing, Defendants admitted that they had not conferred or tried to
reasonably limit their requests, and the Court put the parties in a breakout room to discuss
options. The parties agreed that Plaintiffs would produce documents and emails related
to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit. The parties subsequently agreed on the record
to submit an order to the Court to memorialize their agreement.
On February 27, 2024, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a draft order
“in line with our agreement from yesterday” that sought to require Plaintiffs to produce
“communications and documents within their possession, custody, or control” related to
the transactions at issue in the lawsuit. See Ex. A, J. Sindelar email with attached
proposed order. To the contrary, communications were never discussed during the
hearing; the parties discussed emails.2 On February 28, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent
back the draft order with the language corrected to reflect emails, not communications,
as discussed by the parties. See Ex. C, K. Vanstory email with attached proposed order.
Defendants’ counsel responded and accepted the proposed changes, including the
2 This is not the first time that Defendants have attempted to change the Court's ruling in a proposed order.
The parties had to go to the courthouse the day after the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Compel
regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information and ask the Court to resolve the parties’ differences in the
language of the proposed order. The Court signed Plaintiffs’ order and asked Mr. Staine, Defendants’
counsel, why he was trying to change the Court's ruling. See Ex. B, Order on Defendants’ Motions to
Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, signed by the Court in person on February 20, 2024.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
3 of 12
change from communications to emails. See Ex. D, J. Sindelar email; Exs. A and C. As
of February 28, 2024, prior to the Order being entered, Defendants agreed that the Order
did not encompass communications (text messages). The Court entered the Order on
March 6, 2024. See Ex. A to Defendants’ Motion.
On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs produced the items required by Paragraphs 1 and 2
of the Order. See Ex. E, March 22, 2024 Letter. Plaintiffs produced all of Mr. Tubeileh and
Sinostar Investments LLC’s W2s and 1099s, along with all documents and emails from
Mr. Tubeileh’s Gmail or Sinostar emails related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit.
On April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs served the redacted documents from the Chase Subpoena in
accordance with Paragraph 3 of the Order. See Ex. F, April 3, 2024 Letter.
On April 1, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed to Defendants that responsive
documents had been produced. See Ex. G, C. Bowline email. On April 5, 2024, counsel
for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs told counsel for
Defendants 1) that Plaintiffs had produced all emails and documents related to the
transactions at issue in the lawsuit (including all responsive emails from Mr. Tubeileh’s
Gmail account); 2) that Plaintiffs had produced Plaintiffs’ 1099s from 2017-2023, and that
there was no 1099 for Jamalabox; and 3) although the production of text messages was
not called for by the parties’ agreement or the Court's Order, Plaintiffs would search for
and produce responsive text messages on or before April 19, 2024. See Ex. 2, Bowline
Declaration. Defendants’ counsel took the position that the Order entitled them to all
communications and documents regarding all transactions in which Tubeileh participated
for Global. Following the call, Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up with an email regarding the
text messages. See Ex. H, C. Bowline email.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
4 of 12
On April 18, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendants’ counsel with the communications
(text messages and WhatsApp messages) for the individuals and entities identified in
Defendants’ requests related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit, along with all
communications and documents for the transactions in which Tubeileh participated for
Global. See Ex. |, April 18, 2024 Letter. On April 19, 2024, Plaintiffs produced a $0.32
1099 for Sinostar from 2018. See Ex. J, C. Bowline email. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs
produced Mr. Tubeileh’s WhatsApp messages with Thorsten Wagner, one of Global AG’s
investors. See Ex. M.
The statements in Defendants’ motion are untrue. Plaintiffs have fully complied
with the Court’s Order, as detailed by the attached evidence, and as told to Defendants
prior to the filing of the Motion. In fact, Plaintiffs have produced additional documents not
required by the Court’s Order. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
IV.
Argument and Authoritie:
A. “Text Messages”
The Court's Order does not require the production of text messages; to the
contrary, the Order requires the production of “emails and documents.” See Ex. A to
Motion. Text messages are “communications’—not emails or documents. Defendants
know that the Order does not contemplate the production of text messages because the
term “communications” was expressly removed from Defendants’ proposed order. See
Ex. A, C, D; Ex. A to Motion.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Order does not require the production of text
3 Defendants have not requested communications with Mr. Wagner or his company, GDT. However,
Plaintiffs produced this WhatsApp chat because these communications relate to Mr. Tubeileh’s work with
Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
5 of 12
messages, on the April 5, 2024 call and in subsequent emails, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered
to produce text messages related to the transactions at issue with the lawsuit (in
accordance with the Court’s prior orders) by April 19, 2024.4 See Ex. H; Ex. 2, J 3.
Plaintiffs produced these documents on April 18, 2024. See Ex. |. Plaintiffs produced all
text messages and WhatsApp messages related to the transactions at issue in this
lawsuit;> Plaintiffs do not have any additional non-privileged communications related to
the transactions at issue in this lawsuit that have not been produced. See Ex. 1, J 4, 9;
Ex. 2, 7. Therefore, because the Order did not require the production of communications
and because all relevant communications have nevertheless been produced, Defendants’
Motion should be denied.
B. “Tubeileh’s Computers”
The Court’s Order does not order Plaintiffs to produce any devices or computers.
See Ex. A. to Motion. Moreover, Defendants’ statement that “Plaintiffs have produced no
documents that were locally saved to Tubeileh’s personal computer...” is false.® Plaintiffs’
dispute Defendants’ overly broad interpretation of “transactions at issue in this lawsuit;”
4 Defendants statement that “The Order to Compel required Plaintiffs to produce these relevant documents,
yet Plaintiffs continue to refuse to do so” is false. Motion, at p. 4. Plaintiffs told Defendants that they would
produce these text messages, not contemplated by the Order, three days before Defendants filed their
Motion.
5 Notably, despite referencing text messages with Grant Norwood (“produced by third-party sources in
discovery”) in their Motion, Defendants have not produced any text messages from Grant Norwood to
Plaintiffs. These text messages are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 54 and 56;
however, Defendants have not produced them, in spite of their statement that for those requests,
“Defendants are not withholding any documents based on the objections stated in the responses to those
RFPs. Defendants have produced all responsive documents located in their possession, custody, or control
responsive to those requests after conducting a diligent search for responsive documents.” See Ex. H.1.
These text messages would also be directly responsive to Request for Production No. 5 from Plaintiffs’
Second Set of Requests for Production.
® See Plaintiffs’ production in this case, including, by way of example, BT307769-30774 (Nov. 1, 2018
Purchase and Sale Agreement for Tubeileh for Coffield Estate); BT307791 (Nov. 1, 2018 Tubeileh
participation in Johnson 1H); BT 307939-307942 (July 20, 2019 Purchase/Sale Agreement for Tubeileh for
Coffield Estate); etc.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
6 of 12
Defendants’ claims involve payments to and the interests obtained by Tubeileh and
Sinostar (and their “associates”). See Second Amended Counterclaim filed on 2/15/2024
(the “Counterclaim”). Plaintiffs produced all emails and documents related to the
a
transactions at issue (regarding payments to Plaintiffs’ and their “associates” and their
interests, as pled by Defendants) in this lawsuit, in compliance with the Court’s Order, on
March 22, 2024. However, in the interest of completeness and to avoid any dispute,
Plaintiffs produced all emails and documents related to the underlying transactions
1
themselves (and not just the transactions involving Plaintiffs’ and their “associates
interests, as pled by Defendants) on April 18, 2024. See Ex. J; Ex. 1, ] 6, 9; Ex. 2, J 7.
Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court's Order, and Defendants’ Motion should be
denied.
C. “Tubeileh’s Personal Email Accounts”
Plaintiffs have produced all emails related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit
as described in the Order, including those from Tubeileh’s Gmail account
(starto8899@gmail.com). See Ex. 1, 75, 9; Ex. 2, J] 7. Plaintiffs previously conveyed this
to Defendants on April 1, 2024 and on April 5, 2024. See Ex. H; Ex. 2, | 3. Plaintiffs have
fully complied with the Court’s Order, and Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
D. “John Barnett”
Plaintiffs have contacted Mr. Barnett, the former manager for Sinostar (as well as
for Defendant Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC and GOGAG’s former subsidiaries
Adler Energy and Global Oklahoma Production),’ several times to see if he has any
7 Notably, Defendants have not produced any documents from John Barnett (Defendant Global Oil & Gas
Fields Oklahoma’s former manager). Moreover, Defendants have not produced any documents from Dr.
Detlef Mader. Dr. Mader was Defendants’ President and the CEO of GOGAG at all relevant times.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
7 of 12
documents or information related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit. See Ex. 1, J
7. When Mr. Barnett was the manager for Sinostar, Jenny Penn (Mr. Barnett’s assistant,
who was not employed by Sinostar) maintained Sinostar documents for him. /d. Ms. Penn
left Mr. Barnett’s employment years ago and Mr. Barnett does not know what Ms. Penn
did with any documents when she left. /d. Neither Mr. Barnett nor Mr. Tubeileh know Ms.
Penn’s current contact information. /d; Ex. 2, | 4. On April 18, 2024, Mr. Barnett informed
Plaintiffs that he has a small number of hard-copy documents for Sinostar that he is
mailing to Plaintiffs’ counsel. /d. If the documents provided by Mr. Barnett are responsive
and have not been previously produced, Plaintiffs will produce them. Ex. 2, {] 4. Plaintiffs
have fully complied with the Court’s Order, Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
E. “Oil, Gas, & Mineral Assignments”
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to produce emails for assignments from
Sinostar to Tubeileh. To the contrary, Plaintiffs have produced all responsive emails and
documents (including all assignments and the relevant emails with John Barnett®), and
Plaintiffs are not in possession, custody, or control of any additional responsive emails.
See Ex. 1, 5-6, 9; Ex. 2, 7. Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
F. “IRS Form 1099s”
As Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly told Defendants, Plaintiffs have produced all
of Plaintiffs’ 1099s and there is no 1099 from Jamalabox to Sinostar.° See Ex. G; Ex. 2,
{ 3. Plaintiffs have produced all 1099s and W2s for the relevant time period, and have
Presumably, Defendants have not contacted Dr. Mader in their search for documents, although the
Settlement Agreement between Defendants and their parent company and Dr. Mader provides them with
access to all of his documents. See Ex. N at N.5-N.6, {[ 3, titled “Handover of the business/ return of items
and documents.”
® See, e.g., BT102123-102127.
° Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, 1099s are not required for payments to LLCs that are taxed as
corporations (Sinostar).
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
8 of 12
confirmed with their tax advisors that all such documents have been provided. See Ex. 1,
1 8, 9; Ex. 2, 75, 7. Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court’s Order, and Defendants’
Motion should be denied.
G. Defendants’ Affirmative Claims Waived
Defendants are not entitled to the discovery sought because they waived all
potential claims against Tubeileh. Defendants filed an 83-page counterclaim in the public
records, seeking to smear and insult Tubeileh. See Counterclaim. Defendants
inappropriately obtained Tubeileh’s private emails containing conversations with his
accountants and tax returns, then filed this information in the public record, including
information about Tubeileh’s children’s education expenses (and listing the exact amount
of their tuition), housing expenses, and Plaintiffs’ tax returns, even going so far as to file
portions of Plaintiffs’ bank statements and identify Plaintiffs’ assets. /d. at p. 51-53.
Defendants’ Counterclaim seeks to invalidate all of the agreements between Plaintiffs and
Defendants other than the 2019 Employment Agreement (all of which were duly signed
by Dr. Mader, Defendants’ president and the CEO of GOGAG) and recoup all
compensation paid to Plaintiffs.
Defendants’ Counterclaim, while lengthy and replete with malicious accusations,
is short on any actual facts supporting Defendants’ allegations against Plaintiffs.
Defendants fail to acknowledge that they waived all claims and agreed to release and
indemnify Tubeileh for any allegations related to his work for Defendants:
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page
9 of 12
2. BT agrees to serve in the assigned position and to perform diligently and to the best
of BT’s abilities the duties and services either from the US or abroad. BT’s responsibilities
are the management and overview of day-to-day operations oesiobale US couitles well
as new acquisitions.
im Ol
See Agreement, Ex. J, BT 000150, at [| 2. Defendants now seek to invalidate that
Agreement. However, the 2019 Agreement, under which Defendants have brought their
claims against Tubeileh, contains a similar provision waiving all claims against Tubeileh
and agreeing to indemnify Tubeileh for any allegations related to his work for Defendants:
2. Employee agrees to serve in the assigned position and to perform diligently and to
the best of Employee’s abilities the duties and services, as well as such additional or
different duties and services appropriate to such position which Employee from time to
time may be reasonably directed to perform by Global or GOG in writing (email). Employee
shall not be responsible or liable for any tax-related or accounting of either Global or any
other subsidiary of GOG. In addition, Global herewith waives any possible claims against
Employee and herewith pledges its assets to hold Employee harmless to any types of claims,
punitive or civil damages or any similar charges made against Employee in connection with
his employment either at Global or any other subsidiary of GOG for any tax, accounting or
day-to-day financial management.
Employee shall at all times comply with and be subject to
such policies and procedures as Global or GOG may establish from time to time, including
any published company Code of Business Conduct.
See 2019 Agreement, Ex. K, BT 000155, at {| 2. In spite of the waivers and the indemnity
provisions in the 2019 Agreement and the Agreement, Defendants filed affirmative claims
against Plaintiffs and have not complied with their indemnity obligations. Ex. 1, J 12.
Defendants have waived “any possible claims against [Tubeileh];” therefore all of
the allegations in the Counterclaim are without merit, and discovery on Defendants’
claims is moot. See Ex. J, K. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 10 of 12
V.
Conclusion
Because Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court's Order (even producing
communications, which were not required by the Order), Plaintiffs ask this Court to deny
Defendants’ Motion.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and
Sinostar Investments LLC pray that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion and to further
grant Plaintiffs all such further relief whether in law or in equity upon which they may show
themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
BRIAN LAUTEN, P.C.
RIeSso-
Brian P. Lauten
State Bar No. 24031603
blauten@pbrianlauten.com
Courtney G. Bowline
State Bar No. 24055206
cbowline@brianlauten.com
Kaylee Vanstory
State Bar No. 24115009
kvansto brianlauten.com
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 414-0996 telephone
(214) 744-3015 facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BERNARD TUBEILEH and
SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the
undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on April 22, 2024, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record by way of the ECF case
manager system.
RIeSse-
BRIAN P. LAUTEN
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 12 of 12
Courrtney Bowline
From: Sindelar, Jeffrey C.
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Courtney Bowline
Ce: Brian Lauten; Michelle Logan; Kaylee Vanstory; Fellenbaum, Joshua L;
christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com; Zellers, Michael; Eggspuehler, Chad M.
Subject: Tubeileh v. Global - Proposed Order on Defendants Motion to Compel RFP Responses
Attachments: 2024-02-27-1649 GOG - Proposed Order re DE Motion to Compel RFPs Sets 1-4.docx
Courtney:
Thank you,
Jeff
Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. | Attorney | Tucker Ellis LLP
50 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 | Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Direct: 216-696-3697 | Fax: 216-592-5009 | Mobile: 216.577.4208
jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com Online Biography - Jeffrey Sindelar Jr
tuckerellis.com
This e-mail is sent by the law firm of Tucker Ellis LLP and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately by return email.
Exhibit A.1
CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534
BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INVESTMENTS LLC, §
Plaintiffs, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
vs.
68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS
OKLAHOMA LLC,
Defendants.
and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET
ie
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
Vv.
BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL.,
Counterclaim Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL
RESPONSES TO GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC’S AND GLOBAL OIL AND GAS
FIELD OKLAHOMA LLC’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SETS 1-4
On February 26, 2024, the Court heard the Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel
Responses to Global Oil & Gas Texas LLC’s and Global Oil and Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC’s
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4 (the “Motion to Compel”), filed by Defendants and
Counterclaim Plaintiffs Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma,
LLC (collectively “Defendants”). The Court, having considered the Motion to Compel, the
Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Compel, filed by Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh
and Sinostar Investments, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants’ Reply in Support of
Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to
Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 1
Exhibit A.2
their Motion to Compel, and after hearing oral arguments, is of the opinion and finds that
Defendants’ Motions to Compel should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Court that Defendants’ Motion to Compel is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1 Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs will search for and produce documents and
communications within their possession, custody, or control—including communications and
documents in the possession, custody, or control of Sinostar Investments, LLC or located in the
personal email accounts of Bernard Tubeileh: related to transactions at issue in this lawsuit during
the relevant time period. The relevant time period for transactions at issue in this lawsuit is from
January 1, 2017 through when Mr. Tubeileh left the employ of Defendants in May 2023. The
relevant time period for payments related to transactions at issue in the lawsuit is from January 1,
2017 to the present.
2 Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs agree to produce IRS Form 1099s and W2s related to
transactions at issue in the lawsuit. In return, Defendants agree to withdraw their request for
Plaintiffs’ tax returns at this time.
3 Subject to the deadline set forth in §3 of the February 20, 2024 Order on
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, Plaintiffs are ordered
to produce 1 1 ut n ( mmuni tions d ribed in {fj 1-2 of t rd within 21 calendar
days from the entry date of this Order.
Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to
Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 2
Exhibit A.3
4 The parties reserve their rights with respect to the other specific requests and
objections at issue in Defendants’ Motion to Compel until after Plaintiffs have completed the
document production required under this Order.
SO ORDERED this day of , 2024.
PRESIDING JUDGE
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
/s/
COURTNEY BOWLINE
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
/s/
JOSH FELLENBAUM
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to
Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 3
Exhibit A.4
CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534
BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INVESTMENTS LLC,
Plaintiffs, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
vs.
68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS
OKLAHOMA LLC,
Defendants.
and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET
AL.,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
Vv.
BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL.,
Counterclaim Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL INFORMATION
On February 19, 2024, the Court heard the Motion to Compel Responses to Global Oil &
Gas Texas’s First Set of Interrogatories and Motion to Compel and Opposition to
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Quash and for Protective Order Regarding
Subpoenas as to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (collectively, the “Motions to Compel”), filed by
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields
Oklahoma, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). The Court, having considered the Motions to
Compel, the Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’
Financial Information, filed by Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments, LLC
Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information - 1
Exhibit B.1
(collectively “Plaintiffs”), and hearing oral arguments, is of the opinion and finds that Defendants’
Motions to Compel should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Court that Defendants’ Motions to Compel are
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1 Plaintiffs are ordered and directed to provide amended answers to Interrogatory
Nos. 1 and 2 of Global Oil & Gas Texas’s First Set of Interrogatories (collectively, the
“Interrogatories”), within seven calendar days from the date this Order is signed, to identify the
financial accounts used by Plaintiffs for the transactions at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ amended
answers to the Interrogatories must be verified, in accordance with the requirements of Tex. R.
Civ. P. 197.2(d).
2 J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) is ordered and directed to provide
complete and full responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel ONLY, and to produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel
ONLY all documents and tangible things in its possession, custody or control, that are responsive
to the Duces Tecum attached as Ex. 1 to each of the two subpoenas issued by Defendants to the
Bank on October 30, 2023, in full compliance with Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006. The Bank is not to
send any of the information to Defendants,ke ere: yment
PICCISt Ss derthe-fexas-Fittance
Code. The Bank is directed
to send any responses, documents, and tangible things to counsel for Plaintiffs ONLY, at:
Courtney Bowline
Brian Lauten, PC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, Texas 75219
214.414.0996 T | 214.744.3015 F
cbowline@brianlauten.com
3 Within 21 calendar days from their receipt of the responses and documents
produced by the Bank, pursuant to { 2 of this Order (collectively, the “Subpoenaed Information”),
Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information - 2
Exhibit B.2
Plaintiffs must serve on Defendants the Subpoenaed Information; provided, however, that prior to
service of the Subpoenaed Information on Defendants, Plaintiffs may redact all of the Subpoenaed
A-GORSCLI ON ae ac DOT Qe 1S]
Information for bpoe transactions-from-the
La NS Lawsuit,
accounts
to.Bernard—Fubeileh+SinestarInvestments,
LLC;_Global_Oil & Gas Texas,LLC; Global
Oit-&-Gas-Fields Oklahoma LLC; Jamalabox LLC; Billy-Huddleston;-and-Louisiana_Offshore—
Expleration-LLe).
4 Defendants are permitted and authorized to challenge any redactions Plaintiffs
make to the Subpoenaed Information by requesting the Court to conduct an in camera review of
the challenged redactions and provide a ruling on the propriety of the challenged redactions.
SO ORDERED this da Kn day of CLVY 2024.
lll esc ———
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
/s/
QD
KUM
URTHEN
iy V
B Q OY
| Vanstory
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIF
oo UM
So
CinriSssomner BSraioe
JOSH FELLEN
JOSHFE BAUM
LLENBA
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information - 3
Exhibit B.3
Courtney Bowline
From: Kaylee Vanstory
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 12:29 PM
To: Sindelar, Jeffrey C.; Courtney Bowline
Cc: Brian Lauten; Michelle Logan; Fellenbaum, Joshua L.; christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com; Zellers,
Michael; Eggspuehler, Chad M.
Subject: RE: Tubeileh v. Global - Proposed Order on Defendants Motion to Compel RFP Responses
Attachments: 2024-02-27-1649 GOG - Proposed Order re DE Motion to Compel RFPs Sets 1-4 P edits.v1.docx
Hi Jeffrey —
Please see attached for our revisions. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out
to Courtney.
Thank you,
Kaylee Vanstory | Associate
Brian Lauten, PC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd.
Suite 825
Dallas, Texas 75219
214.414.0996 T | 214.744.3015 F
kvansto brianlauten.com
brianlauten.com
From: Sindelar, Jeffrey C.
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Courtney Bowline
Cc: Brian Lauten ; Michelle Logan ; Kaylee Vanstory
; Fellenbaum, Joshua L. ;
christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com; Zellers, Michael ; Eggspuehler, Chad M.
Subject: Tubeileh v. Global - Proposed Order on Defendants Motion to Compel RFP Responses
Courtney:
Attached please find a proposed order in line with our agreement from yesterday on Defendants’ Motion to
Compel re RFP Sets 1-4. Please let us know if this looks ok to you or if you have any proposed revisions.
Thank you,
Jeff
Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. | Attorney | Tucker Ellis LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 | Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Direct: 216-696-3697 | Fax: 216-592-5009 | Mobile: 216.577.4208
jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com Online Biography - Jeffrey Sindelar Jr
tuckerellis.com
Exhibit C.1
This e-mail is sent by the law firm of Tucker Ellis LLP and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately by return email.
Exhibit C.2
CAUSE NO, DC-23-07534
BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INVESTMENTS LLC, §
Plaintiffs, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
vs.
68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS
OKLAHOMA LLC,
Defendants.
and
GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET
AL.,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
v,
BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL.,
Counterclaim Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL
RESPONSES TO GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC’S AND GLOBAL OIL AND GAS
FIELD OKLAHOMA LLC’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SETS 1-4
On February 26, 2024, the Court heard the Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel
Responses to Global Oil & Gas Texas LLC’s and Global Oil and Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC’s
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4 (the “Motion to Compel”), filed by Defendants and
Counterclaim Plaintiffs Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma,
LLC (collectively “Defendants”). The Court, having considered the Motion to Compel, the
Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Compel, filed by Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh
and Sinostar Investments, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants’ Reply in Support of
their Motion to Compel, and-after hearing oral arguments, is~of
the-opinionandtinds
that
Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to
Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 1
Exhibit C.3
Defendants*Motions-to-Compel
should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED-IN PAR Fand.
ased on the agreement of the parties, ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:. _ Formatted: Font: Bold
¥FIS-FHEREFORE-ORDERED
by-the-Court that Defendants Motion te-Compelis
1 Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs will search for and produce emails and documents
and
communications
within their possession, custody, or control—including thoseeessmunications
and-documents in the possession, custody, or control of Sinostar Investments, LLC or located in
the personal email accounts of Bernard Tubcileh—related to transactions at issue in this lawsuit
during the relevant time period. The relevant time period for transactions at issue in this lawsuit is
from January 1, 2017 through May 11, 2023.-when-Mr-Fubeilehteft
the employ-ef Defendants in
May-202 Fh 1 P dt pay Jated-t 3 t th 4 i
trom
January
|. 20) 7 to the present.
o2. Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs agree to produce IRS Form 1099s and W2s related to
transactions at issue in the lawsuit. In return, Defendants agree to withdraw their request for
Plaintiffs’ tax returns at this time.
23. Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants”
Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs further agree to produce the Subpoenaed Information
with redactions, as defined and set forth in the Februar 20. 2024 Order on Defendants’ Motion to
Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, by the deadline set forth in {3 of that Order.
The relevant time period for payments related to transactions at issue in the lawsuit is from January
1, 2017 to the present. Formatted: Font color: Black
Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to
Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 2
Exhibit C.4
34. bi ee hi 1 hi fee Lh. 4. th Fel: 0,-2024-Ord
Dek 4 5?Mi to f HR si 4 PI £5?B Hak i Plaintiffs are ordered
to produce the emails and documents and communications deseribed in ff 1-2 ofthis Order within
21 calendar days from the entry date of this Order.
4,5.__The parties res
Preview
FILED 4/22/2024 1:01 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INVESTMENTS LLC, Plaintiffs, Vv. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC, Defendants. 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SETS 1-4 I Summary of Argument Defendants served four sets of requests for production that are overly broad, not reasonably tailored, harassing, and seek information that is not relevant to the claims in this lawsuit and filed a Motion to Compel. At the prior hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Compel, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs would produce all emails and documents related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit, along with all 1099s and W2s from 2017-2023. The Court issued the agreed Order on March 6, 2024, memorializing the parties’ agreement. Plaintiffs have produced all required documents and emails, as confirmed to Defendants’ counsel in a phone call on April 5, 2024. In addition, although not required by the Order, Plaintiffs produced all communications related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit. On April 8, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Pursuant to the Court’s March 6, 2024 Order (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs have complied with the Court's Order, and Defendants waived all claims against Plaintiffs; therefore, Defendants’ Motion should be denied in whole. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 1 of 12 I. Exhibits & Competent Evidenc: Exhibit A— February 27, 2024 email from J. Sindelar attaching proposed order February 20, 2024 Order on Defendants’ Motion to Compel regarding Exhibit B— Plaintiffs’ Financial Information February 28, 2024 email from K. Vanstory attaching edits to proposed Exhibit C— order Exhibit D— February 28, 2024 email from J. Sindelar Exhibit E— March 22, 2024 Letter from C. Bowline producing BT305776-BT317855 Exhibit F— April 3, 2024 Letter from C. Bowline producing BT318348-341729 Exhibit G— April 1, 2024 email from C. Bowline Exhibit H— April 5, 2024 email from C. Bowline Exhibit I— April 19, 2024 email from C. Bowline producing BT347610 Exhibit J— April 18, 2024 Letter from C. Bowline producing BT341730-BT347609 Exhibit K— 2019 Employment Agreement Exhibit L— 2022 Agreement Exhibit M— April 22, 2024 email from C. Bowline producing BT347611-BT347835 December 30, 2023 Email and Draft Settlement Agreement from Dr. Detlef Exhibit N— Mader (BT305279-BT305286)' = Exhibit 1— Declaration of Bernard Tubeileh Exhibit 2— Declaration of Courtney Bowline I. Facts Tubeileh worked for Global Oil & Gas AG (“GOGAG’), a German corporation, as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Management Board from 2007 through 2015. Tubeileh worked as the Manager for Defendants in the United States from 2015 until May 2023. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on June 6, 2023, seeking payments due under the March Sinostar Loan Agreement, the Tubeilen Loan Agreement, the PSA, and the Agreement, and seeking a declaratory judgment. Defendants answered and made ‘ Plaintiffs have expressly requested the final, executed version of this settlement agreement and Defendants have failed to produce it. This is the basis of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for Third Set of Requests for Production, previously set on April 8, 2024 and reset for hearing on May 13, 2024. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 2 of 12 counterclaims against Plaintiffs, alleging claims for breach of a prior management agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, theft, conversion, fraudulent inducement, and declaratory judgment. Pertinent to this Motion, Defendants served four sets of requests for production on Plaintiffs (the “Requests”). Plaintiffs objected and responded to each request. Although all of Defendants’ Requests were overly broad, Defendants moved to overrule Plaintiffs’ objections. At the hearing, Defendants admitted that they had not conferred or tried to reasonably limit their requests, and the Court put the parties in a breakout room to discuss options. The parties agreed that Plaintiffs would produce documents and emails related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit. The parties subsequently agreed on the record to submit an order to the Court to memorialize their agreement. On February 27, 2024, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a draft order “in line with our agreement from yesterday” that sought to require Plaintiffs to produce “communications and documents within their possession, custody, or control” related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit. See Ex. A, J. Sindelar email with attached proposed order. To the contrary, communications were never discussed during the hearing; the parties discussed emails.2 On February 28, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent back the draft order with the language corrected to reflect emails, not communications, as discussed by the parties. See Ex. C, K. Vanstory email with attached proposed order. Defendants’ counsel responded and accepted the proposed changes, including the 2 This is not the first time that Defendants have attempted to change the Court's ruling in a proposed order. The parties had to go to the courthouse the day after the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Compel regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information and ask the Court to resolve the parties’ differences in the language of the proposed order. The Court signed Plaintiffs’ order and asked Mr. Staine, Defendants’ counsel, why he was trying to change the Court's ruling. See Ex. B, Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, signed by the Court in person on February 20, 2024. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 3 of 12 change from communications to emails. See Ex. D, J. Sindelar email; Exs. A and C. As of February 28, 2024, prior to the Order being entered, Defendants agreed that the Order did not encompass communications (text messages). The Court entered the Order on March 6, 2024. See Ex. A to Defendants’ Motion. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs produced the items required by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order. See Ex. E, March 22, 2024 Letter. Plaintiffs produced all of Mr. Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC’s W2s and 1099s, along with all documents and emails from Mr. Tubeileh’s Gmail or Sinostar emails related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit. On April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs served the redacted documents from the Chase Subpoena in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the Order. See Ex. F, April 3, 2024 Letter. On April 1, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed to Defendants that responsive documents had been produced. See Ex. G, C. Bowline email. On April 5, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs told counsel for Defendants 1) that Plaintiffs had produced all emails and documents related to the transactions at issue in the lawsuit (including all responsive emails from Mr. Tubeileh’s Gmail account); 2) that Plaintiffs had produced Plaintiffs’ 1099s from 2017-2023, and that there was no 1099 for Jamalabox; and 3) although the production of text messages was not called for by the parties’ agreement or the Court's Order, Plaintiffs would search for and produce responsive text messages on or before April 19, 2024. See Ex. 2, Bowline Declaration. Defendants’ counsel took the position that the Order entitled them to all communications and documents regarding all transactions in which Tubeileh participated for Global. Following the call, Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up with an email regarding the text messages. See Ex. H, C. Bowline email. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 4 of 12 On April 18, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendants’ counsel with the communications (text messages and WhatsApp messages) for the individuals and entities identified in Defendants’ requests related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit, along with all communications and documents for the transactions in which Tubeileh participated for Global. See Ex. |, April 18, 2024 Letter. On April 19, 2024, Plaintiffs produced a $0.32 1099 for Sinostar from 2018. See Ex. J, C. Bowline email. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs produced Mr. Tubeileh’s WhatsApp messages with Thorsten Wagner, one of Global AG’s investors. See Ex. M. The statements in Defendants’ motion are untrue. Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court’s Order, as detailed by the attached evidence, and as told to Defendants prior to the filing of the Motion. In fact, Plaintiffs have produced additional documents not required by the Court’s Order. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion should be denied. IV. Argument and Authoritie: A. “Text Messages” The Court's Order does not require the production of text messages; to the contrary, the Order requires the production of “emails and documents.” See Ex. A to Motion. Text messages are “communications’—not emails or documents. Defendants know that the Order does not contemplate the production of text messages because the term “communications” was expressly removed from Defendants’ proposed order. See Ex. A, C, D; Ex. A to Motion. Notwithstanding the fact that the Order does not require the production of text 3 Defendants have not requested communications with Mr. Wagner or his company, GDT. However, Plaintiffs produced this WhatsApp chat because these communications relate to Mr. Tubeileh’s work with Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 5 of 12 messages, on the April 5, 2024 call and in subsequent emails, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered to produce text messages related to the transactions at issue with the lawsuit (in accordance with the Court’s prior orders) by April 19, 2024.4 See Ex. H; Ex. 2, J 3. Plaintiffs produced these documents on April 18, 2024. See Ex. |. Plaintiffs produced all text messages and WhatsApp messages related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit;> Plaintiffs do not have any additional non-privileged communications related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit that have not been produced. See Ex. 1, J 4, 9; Ex. 2, 7. Therefore, because the Order did not require the production of communications and because all relevant communications have nevertheless been produced, Defendants’ Motion should be denied. B. “Tubeileh’s Computers” The Court’s Order does not order Plaintiffs to produce any devices or computers. See Ex. A. to Motion. Moreover, Defendants’ statement that “Plaintiffs have produced no documents that were locally saved to Tubeileh’s personal computer...” is false.® Plaintiffs’ dispute Defendants’ overly broad interpretation of “transactions at issue in this lawsuit;” 4 Defendants statement that “The Order to Compel required Plaintiffs to produce these relevant documents, yet Plaintiffs continue to refuse to do so” is false. Motion, at p. 4. Plaintiffs told Defendants that they would produce these text messages, not contemplated by the Order, three days before Defendants filed their Motion. 5 Notably, despite referencing text messages with Grant Norwood (“produced by third-party sources in discovery”) in their Motion, Defendants have not produced any text messages from Grant Norwood to Plaintiffs. These text messages are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 54 and 56; however, Defendants have not produced them, in spite of their statement that for those requests, “Defendants are not withholding any documents based on the objections stated in the responses to those RFPs. Defendants have produced all responsive documents located in their possession, custody, or control responsive to those requests after conducting a diligent search for responsive documents.” See Ex. H.1. These text messages would also be directly responsive to Request for Production No. 5 from Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Requests for Production. ® See Plaintiffs’ production in this case, including, by way of example, BT307769-30774 (Nov. 1, 2018 Purchase and Sale Agreement for Tubeileh for Coffield Estate); BT307791 (Nov. 1, 2018 Tubeileh participation in Johnson 1H); BT 307939-307942 (July 20, 2019 Purchase/Sale Agreement for Tubeileh for Coffield Estate); etc. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 6 of 12 Defendants’ claims involve payments to and the interests obtained by Tubeileh and Sinostar (and their “associates”). See Second Amended Counterclaim filed on 2/15/2024 (the “Counterclaim”). Plaintiffs produced all emails and documents related to the a transactions at issue (regarding payments to Plaintiffs’ and their “associates” and their interests, as pled by Defendants) in this lawsuit, in compliance with the Court’s Order, on March 22, 2024. However, in the interest of completeness and to avoid any dispute, Plaintiffs produced all emails and documents related to the underlying transactions 1 themselves (and not just the transactions involving Plaintiffs’ and their “associates interests, as pled by Defendants) on April 18, 2024. See Ex. J; Ex. 1, ] 6, 9; Ex. 2, J 7. Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court's Order, and Defendants’ Motion should be denied. C. “Tubeileh’s Personal Email Accounts” Plaintiffs have produced all emails related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit as described in the Order, including those from Tubeileh’s Gmail account (starto8899@gmail.com). See Ex. 1, 75, 9; Ex. 2, J] 7. Plaintiffs previously conveyed this to Defendants on April 1, 2024 and on April 5, 2024. See Ex. H; Ex. 2, | 3. Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court’s Order, and Defendants’ Motion should be denied. D. “John Barnett” Plaintiffs have contacted Mr. Barnett, the former manager for Sinostar (as well as for Defendant Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC and GOGAG’s former subsidiaries Adler Energy and Global Oklahoma Production),’ several times to see if he has any 7 Notably, Defendants have not produced any documents from John Barnett (Defendant Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma’s former manager). Moreover, Defendants have not produced any documents from Dr. Detlef Mader. Dr. Mader was Defendants’ President and the CEO of GOGAG at all relevant times. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 7 of 12 documents or information related to the transactions at issue in this lawsuit. See Ex. 1, J 7. When Mr. Barnett was the manager for Sinostar, Jenny Penn (Mr. Barnett’s assistant, who was not employed by Sinostar) maintained Sinostar documents for him. /d. Ms. Penn left Mr. Barnett’s employment years ago and Mr. Barnett does not know what Ms. Penn did with any documents when she left. /d. Neither Mr. Barnett nor Mr. Tubeileh know Ms. Penn’s current contact information. /d; Ex. 2, | 4. On April 18, 2024, Mr. Barnett informed Plaintiffs that he has a small number of hard-copy documents for Sinostar that he is mailing to Plaintiffs’ counsel. /d. If the documents provided by Mr. Barnett are responsive and have not been previously produced, Plaintiffs will produce them. Ex. 2, {] 4. Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court’s Order, Defendants’ Motion should be denied. E. “Oil, Gas, & Mineral Assignments” Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to produce emails for assignments from Sinostar to Tubeileh. To the contrary, Plaintiffs have produced all responsive emails and documents (including all assignments and the relevant emails with John Barnett®), and Plaintiffs are not in possession, custody, or control of any additional responsive emails. See Ex. 1, 5-6, 9; Ex. 2, 7. Defendants’ Motion should be denied. F. “IRS Form 1099s” As Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly told Defendants, Plaintiffs have produced all of Plaintiffs’ 1099s and there is no 1099 from Jamalabox to Sinostar.° See Ex. G; Ex. 2, { 3. Plaintiffs have produced all 1099s and W2s for the relevant time period, and have Presumably, Defendants have not contacted Dr. Mader in their search for documents, although the Settlement Agreement between Defendants and their parent company and Dr. Mader provides them with access to all of his documents. See Ex. N at N.5-N.6, {[ 3, titled “Handover of the business/ return of items and documents.” ® See, e.g., BT102123-102127. ° Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, 1099s are not required for payments to LLCs that are taxed as corporations (Sinostar). Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 8 of 12 confirmed with their tax advisors that all such documents have been provided. See Ex. 1, 1 8, 9; Ex. 2, 75, 7. Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court’s Order, and Defendants’ Motion should be denied. G. Defendants’ Affirmative Claims Waived Defendants are not entitled to the discovery sought because they waived all potential claims against Tubeileh. Defendants filed an 83-page counterclaim in the public records, seeking to smear and insult Tubeileh. See Counterclaim. Defendants inappropriately obtained Tubeileh’s private emails containing conversations with his accountants and tax returns, then filed this information in the public record, including information about Tubeileh’s children’s education expenses (and listing the exact amount of their tuition), housing expenses, and Plaintiffs’ tax returns, even going so far as to file portions of Plaintiffs’ bank statements and identify Plaintiffs’ assets. /d. at p. 51-53. Defendants’ Counterclaim seeks to invalidate all of the agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants other than the 2019 Employment Agreement (all of which were duly signed by Dr. Mader, Defendants’ president and the CEO of GOGAG) and recoup all compensation paid to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ Counterclaim, while lengthy and replete with malicious accusations, is short on any actual facts supporting Defendants’ allegations against Plaintiffs. Defendants fail to acknowledge that they waived all claims and agreed to release and indemnify Tubeileh for any allegations related to his work for Defendants: Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 9 of 12 2. BT agrees to serve in the assigned position and to perform diligently and to the best of BT’s abilities the duties and services either from the US or abroad. BT’s responsibilities are the management and overview of day-to-day operations oesiobale US couitles well as new acquisitions. im Ol See Agreement, Ex. J, BT 000150, at [| 2. Defendants now seek to invalidate that Agreement. However, the 2019 Agreement, under which Defendants have brought their claims against Tubeileh, contains a similar provision waiving all claims against Tubeileh and agreeing to indemnify Tubeileh for any allegations related to his work for Defendants: 2. Employee agrees to serve in the assigned position and to perform diligently and to the best of Employee’s abilities the duties and services, as well as such additional or different duties and services appropriate to such position which Employee from time to time may be reasonably directed to perform by Global or GOG in writing (email). Employee shall not be responsible or liable for any tax-related or accounting of either Global or any other subsidiary of GOG. In addition, Global herewith waives any possible claims against Employee and herewith pledges its assets to hold Employee harmless to any types of claims, punitive or civil damages or any similar charges made against Employee in connection with his employment either at Global or any other subsidiary of GOG for any tax, accounting or day-to-day financial management. Employee shall at all times comply with and be subject to such policies and procedures as Global or GOG may establish from time to time, including any published company Code of Business Conduct. See 2019 Agreement, Ex. K, BT 000155, at {| 2. In spite of the waivers and the indemnity provisions in the 2019 Agreement and the Agreement, Defendants filed affirmative claims against Plaintiffs and have not complied with their indemnity obligations. Ex. 1, J 12. Defendants have waived “any possible claims against [Tubeileh];” therefore all of the allegations in the Counterclaim are without merit, and discovery on Defendants’ claims is moot. See Ex. J, K. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion should be denied. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 10 of 12 V. Conclusion Because Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court's Order (even producing communications, which were not required by the Order), Plaintiffs ask this Court to deny Defendants’ Motion. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments LLC pray that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion and to further grant Plaintiffs all such further relief whether in law or in equity upon which they may show themselves justly entitled. Respectfully Submitted, BRIAN LAUTEN, P.C. RIeSso- Brian P. Lauten State Bar No. 24031603 blauten@pbrianlauten.com Courtney G. Bowline State Bar No. 24055206 cbowline@brianlauten.com Kaylee Vanstory State Bar No. 24115009 kvansto brianlauten.com 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 414-0996 telephone (214) 744-3015 facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 11 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on April 22, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record by way of the ECF case manager system. RIeSse- BRIAN P. LAUTEN ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2024 Order Page 12 of 12 Courrtney Bowline From: Sindelar, Jeffrey C. Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:01 PM To: Courtney Bowline Ce: Brian Lauten; Michelle Logan; Kaylee Vanstory; Fellenbaum, Joshua L; christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com; Zellers, Michael; Eggspuehler, Chad M. Subject: Tubeileh v. Global - Proposed Order on Defendants Motion to Compel RFP Responses Attachments: 2024-02-27-1649 GOG - Proposed Order re DE Motion to Compel RFPs Sets 1-4.docx Courtney: Thank you, Jeff Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. | Attorney | Tucker Ellis LLP 50 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 | Cleveland, OH 44113-7213 Direct: 216-696-3697 | Fax: 216-592-5009 | Mobile: 216.577.4208 jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com Online Biography - Jeffrey Sindelar Jr tuckerellis.com This e-mail is sent by the law firm of Tucker Ellis LLP and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately by return email. Exhibit A.1 CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INVESTMENTS LLC, § Plaintiffs, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC, Defendants. and GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET ie Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Vv. BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL., Counterclaim Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL RESPONSES TO GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC’S AND GLOBAL OIL AND GAS FIELD OKLAHOMA LLC’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SETS 1-4 On February 26, 2024, the Court heard the Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Global Oil & Gas Texas LLC’s and Global Oil and Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC’s Requests for Production, Sets 1-4 (the “Motion to Compel”), filed by Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). The Court, having considered the Motion to Compel, the Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Compel, filed by Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants’ Reply in Support of Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 1 Exhibit A.2 their Motion to Compel, and after hearing oral arguments, is of the opinion and finds that Defendants’ Motions to Compel should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Court that Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1 Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’ Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs will search for and produce documents and communications within their possession, custody, or control—including communications and documents in the possession, custody, or control of Sinostar Investments, LLC or located in the personal email accounts of Bernard Tubeileh: related to transactions at issue in this lawsuit during the relevant time period. The relevant time period for transactions at issue in this lawsuit is from January 1, 2017 through when Mr. Tubeileh left the employ of Defendants in May 2023. The relevant time period for payments related to transactions at issue in the lawsuit is from January 1, 2017 to the present. 2 Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’ Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs agree to produce IRS Form 1099s and W2s related to transactions at issue in the lawsuit. In return, Defendants agree to withdraw their request for Plaintiffs’ tax returns at this time. 3 Subject to the deadline set forth in §3 of the February 20, 2024 Order on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, Plaintiffs are ordered to produce 1 1 ut n ( mmuni tions d ribed in {fj 1-2 of t rd within 21 calendar days from the entry date of this Order. Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 2 Exhibit A.3 4 The parties reserve their rights with respect to the other specific requests and objections at issue in Defendants’ Motion to Compel until after Plaintiffs have completed the document production required under this Order. SO ORDERED this day of , 2024. PRESIDING JUDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: /s/ COURTNEY BOWLINE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS /s/ JOSH FELLENBAUM ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 3 Exhibit A.4 CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INVESTMENTS LLC, Plaintiffs, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC, Defendants. and GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET AL., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Vv. BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL., Counterclaim Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL INFORMATION On February 19, 2024, the Court heard the Motion to Compel Responses to Global Oil & Gas Texas’s First Set of Interrogatories and Motion to Compel and Opposition to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Quash and for Protective Order Regarding Subpoenas as to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (collectively, the “Motions to Compel”), filed by Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). The Court, having considered the Motions to Compel, the Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, filed by Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments, LLC Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information - 1 Exhibit B.1 (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and hearing oral arguments, is of the opinion and finds that Defendants’ Motions to Compel should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Court that Defendants’ Motions to Compel are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1 Plaintiffs are ordered and directed to provide amended answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 of Global Oil & Gas Texas’s First Set of Interrogatories (collectively, the “Interrogatories”), within seven calendar days from the date this Order is signed, to identify the financial accounts used by Plaintiffs for the transactions at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ amended answers to the Interrogatories must be verified, in accordance with the requirements of Tex. R. Civ. P. 197.2(d). 2 J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) is ordered and directed to provide complete and full responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel ONLY, and to produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel ONLY all documents and tangible things in its possession, custody or control, that are responsive to the Duces Tecum attached as Ex. 1 to each of the two subpoenas issued by Defendants to the Bank on October 30, 2023, in full compliance with Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006. The Bank is not to send any of the information to Defendants,ke ere: yment PICCISt Ss derthe-fexas-Fittance Code. The Bank is directed to send any responses, documents, and tangible things to counsel for Plaintiffs ONLY, at: Courtney Bowline Brian Lauten, PC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.414.0996 T | 214.744.3015 F cbowline@brianlauten.com 3 Within 21 calendar days from their receipt of the responses and documents produced by the Bank, pursuant to { 2 of this Order (collectively, the “Subpoenaed Information”), Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information - 2 Exhibit B.2 Plaintiffs must serve on Defendants the Subpoenaed Information; provided, however, that prior to service of the Subpoenaed Information on Defendants, Plaintiffs may redact all of the Subpoenaed A-GORSCLI ON ae ac DOT Qe 1S] Information for bpoe transactions-from-the La NS Lawsuit, accounts to.Bernard—Fubeileh+SinestarInvestments, LLC;_Global_Oil & Gas Texas,LLC; Global Oit-&-Gas-Fields Oklahoma LLC; Jamalabox LLC; Billy-Huddleston;-and-Louisiana_Offshore— Expleration-LLe). 4 Defendants are permitted and authorized to challenge any redactions Plaintiffs make to the Subpoenaed Information by requesting the Court to conduct an in camera review of the challenged redactions and provide a ruling on the propriety of the challenged redactions. SO ORDERED this da Kn day of CLVY 2024. lll esc ——— APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: /s/ QD KUM URTHEN iy V B Q OY | Vanstory ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIF oo UM So CinriSssomner BSraioe JOSH FELLEN JOSHFE BAUM LLENBA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Order on Defendants’ Motions to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information - 3 Exhibit B.3 Courtney Bowline From: Kaylee Vanstory Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 12:29 PM To: Sindelar, Jeffrey C.; Courtney Bowline Cc: Brian Lauten; Michelle Logan; Fellenbaum, Joshua L.; christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com; Zellers, Michael; Eggspuehler, Chad M. Subject: RE: Tubeileh v. Global - Proposed Order on Defendants Motion to Compel RFP Responses Attachments: 2024-02-27-1649 GOG - Proposed Order re DE Motion to Compel RFPs Sets 1-4 P edits.v1.docx Hi Jeffrey — Please see attached for our revisions. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out to Courtney. Thank you, Kaylee Vanstory | Associate Brian Lauten, PC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd. Suite 825 Dallas, Texas 75219 214.414.0996 T | 214.744.3015 F kvansto brianlauten.com brianlauten.com From: Sindelar, Jeffrey C. Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:01 PM To: Courtney Bowline Cc: Brian Lauten ; Michelle Logan ; Kaylee Vanstory ; Fellenbaum, Joshua L. ; christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com; Zellers, Michael ; Eggspuehler, Chad M. Subject: Tubeileh v. Global - Proposed Order on Defendants Motion to Compel RFP Responses Courtney: Attached please find a proposed order in line with our agreement from yesterday on Defendants’ Motion to Compel re RFP Sets 1-4. Please let us know if this looks ok to you or if you have any proposed revisions. Thank you, Jeff Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. | Attorney | Tucker Ellis LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 | Cleveland, OH 44113-7213 Direct: 216-696-3697 | Fax: 216-592-5009 | Mobile: 216.577.4208 jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com Online Biography - Jeffrey Sindelar Jr tuckerellis.com Exhibit C.1 This e-mail is sent by the law firm of Tucker Ellis LLP and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately by return email. Exhibit C.2 CAUSE NO, DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INVESTMENTS LLC, § Plaintiffs, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC, Defendants. and GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, ET AL., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v, BERNARD TUBEILEH, ET AL., Counterclaim Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL RESPONSES TO GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC’S AND GLOBAL OIL AND GAS FIELD OKLAHOMA LLC’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SETS 1-4 On February 26, 2024, the Court heard the Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Global Oil & Gas Texas LLC’s and Global Oil and Gas Fields Oklahoma LLC’s Requests for Production, Sets 1-4 (the “Motion to Compel”), filed by Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Global Oil & Gas Texas, LLC and Global Oil & Gas Fields Oklahoma, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). The Court, having considered the Motion to Compel, the Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Compel, filed by Plaintiffs Bernard Tubeileh and Sinostar Investments, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel, and-after hearing oral arguments, is~of the-opinionandtinds that Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 1 Exhibit C.3 Defendants*Motions-to-Compel should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED-IN PAR Fand. ased on the agreement of the parties, ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:. _ Formatted: Font: Bold ¥FIS-FHEREFORE-ORDERED by-the-Court that Defendants Motion te-Compelis 1 Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’ Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs will search for and produce emails and documents and communications within their possession, custody, or control—including thoseeessmunications and-documents in the possession, custody, or control of Sinostar Investments, LLC or located in the personal email accounts of Bernard Tubcileh—related to transactions at issue in this lawsuit during the relevant time period. The relevant time period for transactions at issue in this lawsuit is from January 1, 2017 through May 11, 2023.-when-Mr-Fubeilehteft the employ-ef Defendants in May-202 Fh 1 P dt pay Jated-t 3 t th 4 i trom January |. 20) 7 to the present. o2. Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’ Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs agree to produce IRS Form 1099s and W2s related to transactions at issue in the lawsuit. In return, Defendants agree to withdraw their request for Plaintiffs’ tax returns at this time. 23. Notwithstanding the objections raised by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants” Requests for Production, Sets 1-4, Plaintiffs further agree to produce the Subpoenaed Information with redactions, as defined and set forth in the Februar 20. 2024 Order on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Regarding Plaintiffs’ Financial Information, by the deadline set forth in {3 of that Order. The relevant time period for payments related to transactions at issue in the lawsuit is from January 1, 2017 to the present. Formatted: Font color: Black Order on Defendants’ Motion to Overrule Objections and Compel Responses to Defendants Requests for Production (Sets 1-4) - 2 Exhibit C.4 34. bi ee hi 1 hi fee Lh. 4. th Fel: 0,-2024-Ord Dek 4 5?Mi to f HR si 4 PI £5?B Hak i Plaintiffs are ordered to produce the emails and documents and communications deseribed in ff 1-2 ofthis Order within 21 calendar days from the entry date of this Order. 4,5.__The parties res